In March 2011, Israel’s Iron Dome missile interception system was deployed, after four years in the making. The intention was to form a protective canopy over the country, rendering its population centres as impregnable as possible to attacks from short-range artillery and rockets. But now, to the gall of many Israelis, the future of the system has been thrown into doubt.

In terms of size, Israel is roughly comparable to Wales. This, together with the close proximity of a host of hostile neighbours, means that millions of Israelis live within easy range of artillery attack. During the Lebanon War of 2006, 44 Israeli civilians were killed by rockets fired across the border, and millions more were evacuated or confined to air raid shelters. Iron Dome was supposed to end all this. It is now operational 24 hours a day, and can function on multiple fronts simultaneously, even in inclement weather.

The project was jointly funded by Israel and the United States, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars provided in addition to the annual $3 billion of military aid that America routinely provides to Israel. Last week, however, Randy Jennings, a former Congressional aide on defence issues and a defence industry consultant, warned that funding to Iron Dome may be stopped during the proposed process of “sequestration”, in which $100 billion of next year’s budget will be cut across the board, beginning in January.

Part of the problem with Iron Dome ia that it has not provided the blanket air protection for which many Israelis had hoped. In August 2011, seven rockets were fired from Gaza and only six were intercepted by Iron Dome. The remaining rocket fell in a residential area, killing one civilian. The Commander of the Air Defence Corps, Brig Gen Doron Gavish, said that the authorities had never claimed that Iron Dome was a “hermetic system”.

The following March, after the assassination of the terrorist leader Zohir al-Qaisi in Gaza, an intense barrage of rockets were fired at Israel’s civilian centres. Iron Dome was used against 71 of these, and successfully intercepted just 56. On the whole, these are not bad odds; but when rockets start to get through, even if the majority are shot down, the somewhat hyperbolically named Iron Dome becomes a natural target for criticism.

The recent incursion into Israeli airspace by an unidentified drone has further undermined the efficacy of Iron Dome. Although the missile system was not designed to deal with long-range drones but short-range artillery fire, the criticism has been stinging. Speaking to the Fars news agency, Jemaleddin Aberoumand, a brigadier general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, mockingly suggested that the drone intrusion “shows the inefficiency of the Zionist regime’s Iron Dome and defensive shield … the Zionist regime has abundant weaknesses.”

On Monday, several Patriot missile interceptor batteries, similar to the kind used during the first Gulf War, were scrambled from Northern Israel to guard against any attempt by hostile powers to follow up the drone’s incursion. These Patriot missiles are normally only brought into action during military exercises with the Unites States, and in the build-up to war.

The drone interception seems to have had a greater objective than simply testing the effectiveness of Iron Dome. Intelligence sources have suggested that fragments of the drone recovered from the desert are made of an advanced type of fibreglass that is invisible to radar. It is thought that the drone may have been made by Iranian engineers, who were able to create such a high performance device by analysing the captured American RQ-170 drone which came down in Iran last December, and using the technology in reverse.

The flight path that the drone took is particularly worrying to the Israelis. Undetected, it flew the length of Israel, paying particular attention to gas and oil facilities and the industrial area of Haifa. It also flew over the Navy bases located there, including the top-secret base of Flotilla 13, a well-known commando unit. More worryingly still, it passed the Palmachim air base and had ample chance to survey Nahal Sorek, thought to be one of the key sites of Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons. Eventually, it was detected and shot down by fighter jets.

Brig Gen Doron Gavish has been quick to point out that Iron Dome is still in a process of development. “This is the first system of its kind anywhere in the world,” he has said. “It is in its first operational test, and we’ve already intercepted a large number of sockets targeting Israeli communities, saving many Israeli lives.” If Iron Dome is to continue to evolve, the case for its effectiveness must be made loud and clear, particularly in the corridors of Congress.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The US military has sent a task force to Jordan to help it handle an influx of Syrian refugees and prepare for other scenarios, including Damascus losing control of its chemical weapons, a senior US defence official said Wednesday.

A 150-strong force of planners and specialists -- led by a senior US officer -- was looking at ways to prevent the increasingly bloody Syrian civil war from spilling across Jordan's borders, said the official, who was attending NATO talks in Brussels and who asked not to be named.

They are based at an outpost north of the capital Amman and just 35 miles (55 kilometers) from the border, making it the closest US military presence to the Syrian conflict.

The United States says it is providing non-lethal aid to the rebels, refraining so far from providing arms because of fears they could end up in the hands of hardline Islamist groups taking part in the struggle.

US President Barack Obama has however warned of a broader intervention should Syria use or lose control of its chemical weapons arsenal.

A New York Times report said US and Jordanian officials had discussed setting up a humanitarian buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border patrolled by Jordanian forces with US support but are holding off on the idea for now.

Jordan, a longtime US ally, was an early supporter of the rebellion against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but, along with Washington, fears that the conflict could destabilise an already volatile region.

The Times said the US task force is spending the bulk of its time helping Jordan to coordinate food, water, latrines and other basic services for arriving refugees.

Earlier this month Jordanian riot police used tear gas to disperse Syrian refugees at a camp in the north of the country who set fire to tents and destroyed property in protest at their living conditions.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh has said that over 200,000 Syrian refugees have crossed into Jordan since the uprising erupted 18 months ago.

UN figures show that over 85,000 refugees are registered in Jordan, with another 36,000 awaiting processing. More than 30,000 refugees are staying in the UN-run Zaatari camp, according to official figures.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand Tuesday an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by rights activists as a flagrant abuse of executive power.

The top U.S. court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency monitor its customers' phone calls and Internet traffic.

Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct "warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance" without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general.

But President Barack Obama's administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies.

"Electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the nation's telecommunication system," the Obama administration said while making its case.

"If litigation were allowed to proceed against those who allegedly assisted in such activities, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future, and the possible reduction in intelligence that might result is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation," it stressed.

The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping.

SEE ALSO: Two Secretive Israeli Companies Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

September 10 was a normal day in Benghazi for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

He showed up at work, ran around town conducting business and in consideration of September 11 the following day, he spent the night at the consulate.

The following is the State Department's version of what actually happened: Stevens never left the consulate compound on the eleventh, preferring to conduct meetings within the nine-foot walls topped by barbed wire, rather than venture out and risk any hostilities on the anniversary of 9/11.

Much has been made of Stevens' request for additional security, but he actually got four local militia in addition to his five security officers assigned to the consulate that day.

By 8:30 p.m. the crew had spent an uneventful day within the walls and likely thought they were home free.

It was then that Stevens walked a Turkish official outside the compound's main entrance, noticed all was quiet and went inside to retire for the night.

Within about an hour of the official's departure, guards hear gunfire, explosions and a general uproar outside the front gate. They run to the cameras and see a massive group of armed men pouring into the compound before sounding the alarm, calling the Tripoli embassy, Washington officials, Libyan authorities, and a local US quick response team about a mile away.

Then the guards break from the monitors and the phones grabbing weapons on their way to sweep Stevens and IT specialist Sean Smith to the consulate's safe room.

One agent takes the pair inside while the rest gear up with rifles, body armor and everything they'll need for battle.

The safe room is well-fortified and contains water, medical supplies and windows that open from the inside. What it doesn't have is a proper ventilation system to prevent the fire ripping through the building's furnishings, from filling the room with smoke.

While the attackers can't get into the safe room, they manage to kill Stevens and the IT specialist with the smoke and drive the agent out a window. Despite repeated dives back into the safe room, the guard can't find the other men and clambers to the roof of the compound where he calls in reinforcements.

The four remaining American agents rush to Stevens' building in an armored vehicle to find the collapsed agent and set up a perimeter. Finally, after taking turns going into the safe room on hands and knees the guards find Stevens and his companion dead on the floor.

As they're getting the bodies into the armored vehicle, the response team shows up with about five dozen Libyan militiamen who attempt to secure the perimeter. They can't, and decide to all retreat to the response team's compound.

Carrying the two bodies in the armored vehicle, agents leave the consulate traveling a leisurely 15 mph to avoid drawing attention. Not far from where they started, a team of men urgently signal them inside an enclosed area, but sensing an attack agents hurry off drawing AK-47 fire from as close as two feet away.

Hand grenades are thrown at and beneath the vehicle taking out two of its tires, so agents respond by crossing a median, and driving into traffic to make their escape.

Once inside the response team's compound, the team takes up positions and draws gunfire and rocket propelled grenade attacks well into the morning.

While that had been going on, a team of reinforcements from the US Embassy in Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport to assist. They join the fight, but it's not enough and two more agents are killed by a mortar attack.

It's become a full blown battle and at about 4 a.m. the decision is made to get the hell out. The hours until daylight are filled with assembling a convoy capable of carrying everyone from the city to safety.

The group and the deceased finally arrive at the airport on the twelfth and evacuate on two flights.

The perpetrators of the attack are still at large.

Now: See why all US aircraft carriers have a Ouija board >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

According to a new report from the International Energy Agency, U.S. oil firms can count just one Iraqi oil field to their name.

The agency says:

Commentators largely agree that the federal authorities have driven a hard bargain with
international oil companies in these contracts. The agreed maximum remuneration fees
are at low levels per barrel of oil produced, meaning that the overwhelming share of
the revenue generated is retained by the government; but this is offset, in part, by the
prospect of high volumes, the expectation that the fields are of such size and quality that
there is little technical risk and the consideration that companies are not taking on price
risk or exploration risk.

In 2009, Time's Vivienne Walt wrote about the beginnings of the lockout. She talked to one anonymous Iraqi official who explained what had happened:

The bidding was extremely tough. My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others." In Iraq, at least, the victor has no special claim on the spoils of war.

For what it's worth, ExxonMobil scored the second-largest field in the country.

And American companies are doing much of the actual drilling.

But that pales in comparison to royalty amounts development companies will get. 

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The first line to a recent story on Buzzfeed is enough to make anyone break out a tinfoil hat ... or at the very least buy a new App designed by Navy SEALs.

"The first rule," Buzzfeed staffer Russell Brandom writes, "former Navy SEAL Mike Janke tells me, is that you have to assume the worst: 'Everything you do and say — email, text, phone — is monitored on some level.'"

What Janke and colleague Vic Hyder came up with was an App called "Silent Circle," which encrypts iPhone data to a military-grade level. Janke told Brandom that his inspiration for the App was his work in the field of covert operations; another motivator was both Janke and Hyder's work as private security contractors for celebrities, a field which doesn't just have physical threats, but digital threats (a la Scarlett Johansson not so surreptitious cell phone boob shots).

In light of continuing, unwarranted wiretapping and continuous high-level implications that the National Security Agency screens all (all, as in, every single one) domestic transmissions, the founders and designers of Silent Circle may end up on the bad side of the government, in front of Congress, or worse, subpoenaed in the case of companies like Google and Facebook.

Cofounder Phil Zimmermann, who released PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) tool in 1991, is no stranger to the bad side of government attention, and said two aspect of Silent Circle insulate the company from government ire.

First, technically speaking — even if Silent Circle was brought in front of Congress, or their records were subpoenaed, the structure of Silent Circle prevents it from disclosing any user information. Why? Because the App uses the iPhone CPU to encrypt the data. Any data that leaves the iPhone leaves as total, military grade gobbledy gook, until it reaches another subscriber, in which case it is unscrambled.

Ahhh, but what about the encryption key? A new one is created and erased for every transmission, making each transmission completely, and perpetually indecipherable.

Second, Silent Circle aligns itself with the right people — this App is for operators, for Marines and SEALs abroad, for troops or diplomats or dignitaries who want to call home from a "Hotel in Moscow."

So if Congress does call on them, it'll have to pose questions to Silent Circle's designers, a couple Navy SEALs.

Certainly the App can be used by "cyberpunks" and activists, but it caters to the defense crowd.

Speaking about deployed service members, Hyder tells Brandom, "he can call home and say, hey, I'm going to be home tomorrow. And he can tell his wife, right into her ear, and know nobody else is listening."

NOW SEE: Taiwan Blames Apple Maps For Exposure Of Secret Site >

ALSO CHECK OUT: This Patent Stomps All Over The First Amendment >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A case that pits US government policy on drone strikes in Pakistan against the body of international law is set in the besieged Northwest Frontier Province, where Noor Khan is the plaintiff in a lawsuit on behalf of his father who was killed along with more than 40 others while leading a tribal council.

Was this father, Daud Khan, and the other civilians' deaths ‘extrajudicial murder’ or ‘justified collateral damage’ in war? The question speaks to two starkly different legal conclusions and a fork in the road of international law when it comes to the use of drones, particularly amid the Obama administration’s expanded use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs.

The drone attack in question — on March 17, 2011 — killed 42 people. Four were confirmed Pakistani Taliban members and the rest were reportedly civilians, including tribal elders such as Khan’s father who were attending the tribal council, which was focused on a conflict over 

The assembly, known as a ‘jirga,’ has deep tradition in Pashtun culture and in this instance was aimed at settling the land dispute before it turned violent. But the gathering ended when suspected CIA drones fired several missiles at the meeting place.

Khan’s family filed suit in the High Court of the Peshawar province against the government of Pakistan. Khan seeks redress in the form of action, asking the Pakistani government to pursue and criminally charge those involved with the strike, both inside and outside the country. He is arguing that the government failed in its legal duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens, per Article 9 of the Pakistani Constitution.

The case currently awaits a final judgment and faces several hurdles, with the next hearing scheduled for Oct. 23. Khan's case is one of only a few petitions filed by a surviving relative over the killing of a civilian in an American drone attack and faces generally tenuous chances of success in a convoluted Pakistani legal system, a mix of of British common law and Islamic law divided into five jurisdictions, with higher and lower courts in each jurisdiction.

More importantly, the case will almost definitely fail to lay a finger on the United States government, the party ultimately responsible for the drone strike. Nevertheless, it is an apt lens through which to analyze great legal questions that extend beyond the case.

The lawfulness of predatory drone strikes dredges up a body of international legal questions. Drone strikes are state conduct, or at least “suspected” state conduct, and all state actors are bound by international law, which is comprised of customary practice and treaties. International law is rooted in both primary sources (i.e. principles of law rooted in treaties such as the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention) and customary international law (i.e. universally accepted practice).

At court in Pakistan, Khan’s quest for recourse over his father’s death hinges on a paradox: predatory drone strikes pose familiar legal questions, but answering those questions using existing laws treads unfamiliar territory.

Until now, international law and conventions have addressed the traditional combat context of war: troops in uniform killing other troops in uniform. As modern military methods shift from conventional warfare to combating terrorism through targeted killings, how do these laws apply to the US killing a terrorist disguised as a civilian?

What crimes, if any, does the US commit when a soldier carries out the killing from a cubicle using a joystick to operate the predatory drone? The answers to these questions will largely determine whether or not individuals like Khan are left empty-handed by the law.

When the United States targets and kills civilians with drones, it is bound by both domestic and international law. US domestic laws pose their own set of legal questions, mainly regarding oversight of drone operations by Congress, the US military and the CIA. However, even assuming that the United States’ conduct is completely justifiable under its own laws, the country must still answer to international law which binds states under a neutral set of conduct rules.  

“To my knowledge, there are no legal efforts underway to prosecute the US for the killings of civilians in its conflicts abroad. The debate

in the US right now is over the issue of whether targeted killings are legal or not,” said Hina Shamsi of NYU Law School.

Khan, along with a human rights group, has also filed a case in the United Kingdom against the Foreign Secretary on the basis of his purported complicity in the US strikes in Waziristan. However this comparatively small number of legal cases has not stopped a colossal debate from ensuing over the general legality of drone killings.

Predatory drone strikes pose two fundamental legal questions. The first is a sovereign rights inquiry: When can one state invade a foreign state’s territory to kill an individual without the foreign state’s permission? This only affects state rights, in the case of the March 17 strike, Pakistan’s rights.

The more controversial second question is, irrespective of the sovereignty issue, when does a government have the right to use deadly force against an individual? The answer to the latter establishes victims’ rights and divides the international legal community. This question directly addresses whether Khan, an individual and son of a civilian drone victim, has a claim against the United States.

In general terms, killing an individual without trial is extrajudicial murder unless it qualifies as self-defense. However, during times of war, the so-called ‘rules of war’ are less restrictive and a state can use deadly force against enemy combatants. In the traditional war setting, combatants are easily identifiable as uniformed soldiers belonging to the enemy state.

The identification of a terrorist is much more complicated than that of an enemy combatant in a traditional war context. The jirga where Khan’s father died is a textbook instance of this complication: the meeting was a group of over nearly 50 people, some reportedly affiliated with the Taliban and the rest local elders, apparently coming together to settle a local administrative matter.

An enemy combatant joins the military, arms himself and bears a uniform during his service. Terrorists could be living civilian lives after their incriminating acts, or they might be active criminals disguised as civilians. In either case, killing a suspected terrorist with a drone almost inevitably involves civilian deaths.

What individual rights do the deceased targets and civilians have against the drone-striking country? It depends on the applicable set of international law: international human rights law or the laws of war. The choice of applicable law is determined by whether these targeted drone strikes are part of an armed conflict and this is precisely the issue that splits the legal community.

The United States has a clear stance: We are at war and the rules of war apply to drone strikes. Kenneth Anderson, professor of international law at Washington College of Law and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, explains “[The United States] just says, and this is even more true of the Obama administration than the Bush administration, ‘This is an armed conflict.’ There is no daylight between all three branches of government on how to view this and it is viewed as an armed conflict.”

Under this interpretation of international law, the rules of war govern drone strikes, justifying the use of deadly force against targets and taking into account collateral damage, such as the tribal elders at the meeting where Khan’s father died. Furthermore, this view holds that enemy combatants are participants in the armed conflict wherever they go, so striking targets who are located in Pakistan is fair game under the rules of war.

Opponents take the stance that these strikes are not part of an armed conflict and the rules of war, thus, do not apply. The armed conflict claim is a legal fiction and the United States is cherry picking the legal framework that protects its conduct under the rules of war, thus doing indirectly what they cannot do directly under international human rights laws. Shamsi contends, “I think the key issue here is that the US is claiming that the laws of war apply in places where they absolutely do not apply.”

Contrary to the US stance, this interpretation holds that, regarding Anderson’s explanation, “There is no war going on in a legal sense, and if there is, it is strictly limited to hot battlefields of Afghanistan. [Drone strikes are] governed by standards of international human rights and domestic law, and therefore any killings that take place under the circumstances are not protected by the law of war and instead are just extrajudicial executions, and frankly murder.”

However, some have implied that the existence of only two black and white legal conclusions — all out combat or none at all — is unrealistic. Perhaps the legal community has painted itself into a corner of two extremes that do not account for what is in reality a grey area. The grey area is that predatory drones are part of modern armed conflicts, but the application of existing rules of war may be abused as a blanket license for indiscriminate drone strikes. A middle ground may exist in the form of mandating transparency from the government trying to use drones in armed conflicts.

British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, a proponent of this perspective, explains, “All I really want to see is an honest, open, and transparent discussion. I don’t want the American soldiers getting killed . . . but on the other hand the danger of having more systems that create no jeopardy is it makes it much easier for us as Americans to go around killing people . . . You know people always put two ridiculous alternatives there is always a third option, and in this case there are lots of options.”

NOW SEE: How Iran Changed American Drone Development Forever >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syrian President Assad has assumed personal command of Syrian forces and remains convinced his regime will prevail militarily, Samia Nakhoul of Reuters reports. 

After waves of defections and a rebel bombing in July that killed members of his inner circle and cost his brother a leg, Assad's supporters are now saying the 47-year-old president is self-confident and combative after taking over day-to-day leadership.

"He is no longer a president who depends on his team and directs through his aides," a pro-Syrian Lebanese politician with close ties to Assad told Reuters. "This is a fundamental change in Assad's thinking. Now he is involved in directing the battle."

The politician added the Iranians and the Russians may have helped the steady the daily operations and fighting nerve of Syrian forces, who are now focusing their superior firepower on essential areas—the capital Damascus, the commercial hub of Aleppo and the main roads.

It may not be going as well as Assad's supporters claim as Al-Jazeera reports that opposition fighters have taken control of Maarat al-Numan, a key town on the highway linking Damascus with Aleppo that serves as a pipeline for regime reinforcements headed to Aleppo.

An Arab official told Reuters that Assad's fate is almost irrelevant as the 18-month civil war has destroyed the fabric, as well as the infrastructure, of Syrian society. 

"Everybody is kind of hypnotized by the issue of whether Bashar is president or not, whether he is leaving or not," the Arab official said. "I fear the problem is much bigger than that. The problem is to see how Syria is going to survive, how the new Syria is going to be born."

The Lebanese politician said that "the following or six months will be essential in the battle and not like the past four or five months that have passed" because the U.S. election will be over while Iran and Russia will double down on their support for Assad to maintain their power roles in the region.

Despite Assad's newfound bravado, a Western diplomat told Reuters that something will happen "which causes the regime to fall. The fall of Damascus, a regime coup, or something else. I can't predict what the trigger will be but the regime will fall."

Meanwhile Turkey's Chief of Staff, General Necdet Ozel, said that the Turks "will respond with greater force" if Syria continues to send shells into Turkish territory, according to Jonathon Burch of Reuters.

On Tuesday NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that NATO has "all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary," according to the Associated Press.

SEE ALSO: Syria Is Looking At A Complete Free-For-All If The Assad Regime Falls >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Mitt Romney recently became "choked up" telling the story of how he met former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty at a Christmas party.

But not everyone is buying the candidate's shtick, least of all, Doherty's mother.

Barbara Doherty, Glen's mother, recently spoke out to WHDH Boston about Romney's story:

"I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” she said.

It should be noted that the politicization of the military is common practice, as most recently witnessed in Obama's almost desperate clinging to the Osama raid (and, less so the drone program) as the cornerstone of his foreign policy argument. Rarely, though, is so personal an approach — naming names — used at such opportune a time — Benghazi seems to be the cornerstone of the Romney foreign policy counter argument.

Not to mention that Romney's admittance comes almost three weeks after the SEAL's name was originally released.

It's almost like someone had to remind him he met the guy.

Veterans often find themselves at the forefront of political agenda though — it's almost daily that the Obama-camp uses the accomplishments of veterans as punchlines to guard his almost bizarre lead on Romney in foreign policy. How could one forget Biden's zany repetition of the phrase "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive" in Detroit.

More recently though, the Obama administration allegedly released plans for military strikes on Iran just one day after Romney accused him of having "no plan." It's still using the military, although it's not too personal.

Personal might be using the Pentagon to go after Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette for his publishing of a Osama Raid tell-all. Regardless though, it's a far cry from evoking the name of a fallen SEAL as part of a politically expedient foreign policy attack agenda.

NOW SEE: These Are The 18 Things SEALs Never Leave At Home >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Elf Ellefsen knew slain Navy SEAL Glen Doherty for the last 20 years, even paddled out on a swim with him in the days leading up to his travel to Libya.

Imagine his astonishment when Romney got "choked up" talking about one of his best friends.

According to Ellefsen's interview with My North West journalist Libby Denkmann, Doherty once described the meeting with Romney as "Pathetic and comical."

From Ellefsen:

"To have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."

Ellefsen ended the interview by saying that he thinks Doherty would probably "pity" Romney for having to use his name in a political speech.

The editor notes at the bottom of the article that Ellefsen's political leanings are unknown, but that Ellefsen did say there's no excuse for politicizing military members, regardless of party.

NOW SEE: This SEAL's Mother Told Romney To Save His Tears >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The new Director of Intelligence of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has not been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan over the past eleven years, Matthew M. Aid reports. 

The Pentagon has announced that Major General Gregg C. Potter will replace Major General Robert P. Ashley, Jr. as head of NATO intelligence in Afghanistan.

Aid notes that Maj. Gen. Potter’s only prior operational assignments overseas were in Bosnia in 1999-2000 with the 10th Mountain Division and then in Kosovo in 2001-2002 as commander of the 10th Mountain Division’s intelligence battalion.

But he did serve as the director of intelligence of U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina from March 2007 to January 2009. 

Given that another major general said that special forces and other personnel will need to stay in Afghanistan "for years" after combat troops leave in 2014, Potter seems to the man who will help "own the U.S. mission in Afghanistan" beyond the drawdown.

SEE ALSO: America's Top Military Officer Opposes The Potential Demotion Of This Four-Star General >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report. 

Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.

There are currently more than 2,000 inactive M-1 Abrams tanks sitting at an Army depot in the California desert.

"Our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to [make repairs] because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the House armed services committee.

But Congress set aside $181 million for tanks in the proposed congressional budget for next year and a bipartisan group of 173 House members sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on April 20 that urged him to support their decision to produce more 60-plus-ton vehicles.

Congress doesn't want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is "necessary to protect the industrial base."

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn't halted production since before World War II.

Defense manufacturing titan General Dynamics–which would most likely receive the contract for new tanks—told CNN that halting production at their Lima, Ohio would affect 16,000 jobs and involve 882 suppliers. (CNN notes that the job figure includes people like gas station workers who fill up employees' cars coming and going to the plant.)

Another factor may lie in research done by The Center for Public Integrity, a journalism watchdog group, found that General Dynamics gave campaign contributions at key times, such as around congressional hearings on whether or not to build more tanks.

"We aren't saying there's vote buying" said Aaron Metha, one of the report's authors. "We are saying it's true in pretty much all aspects of politics - but especially the defense industry. It's almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections and the special interests."

Despite the assurances from the Army's chief of staff, Rep. Silvestre Reyes—who has received $64,000 from General Dynamics since 2001—played the national security card, saying "we don't want to play Russian Roulette with the national security of this country."

Other insiders disagree.

"When a relatively conservative institution like the U.S. military, which doesn't like to take risks because risks get people killed, says it has enough tanks, I think generally civilians should be inclined to believe them,"  defense think tank fellow Travis Sharp told CNN.

Here's the video from CNN's report: 

SEE ALSO: These Massive Vehicles Are A Colossal Waste Of Taxpayer Money >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

I got an email asking if this photo was one of mine.

Actually it isn't, but it was first published here in a recent slideshow. The photographer is named Ken Jasik, a Marine Combat Correspondent who was on patrol with me in Helmand, Afghanistan.

"It was when we were walking back to [the combat outpost]. It was the last stop before we got back," Jasik told me. "Lamaire says 'hey combat camera.' I look over he says "take my picture my girlfriend will love this." then he strikes the pose."

"There was no way i could not take the photo, and i love the meme."

Jasik is home now from Afghanistan, but, worth noting, the lens he took this shot with didn't make it — a Taliban gunman put a bullet in it during a particularly close call with Jasik (fortunately, the Marines with Jasik returned the gunman's favor).

The Marine in the photo is Cpl. Kyle Lamaire, and he embodied the definition of "quiet professional." A cold blooded killer on the battlefield, rocking a mustache quite out of regulation, he did have a goofy streak in him, like many Marines I've known.

Dog tired and battle worn, Lamaire noticed the camera and threw down this pose. We posted it, and the internet ran with it.

Last I checked, the meme had a few hundred shares and a thousand likes on the facebook site that posted it.

Lamaire and his unit, 2nd Battalion 5th Marines, have been home from Afghanistan for a few weeks now.

Jasik's lens on the other hand, didn't make it home in one piece:

NOW SEE: This Is What Happens When "Red Air" Strands Marines In Taliban Territory >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The latest edition of "Qaws Quzah", a well-known Tunisian kids magazine named after the Arabic word for "Rainbow", contains detailed instructions and a diagram that shows how to make petrol bombs.

The article appeared in a section titled “Knowledge Corner" and read:

“It is an improvised weapon that is often used in riots and acts of sabotage because it is easy to make and use.”

The magazine is aimed at 5 to 15 year old, Reuters says.

According to NBC, the magazine's editor-in-chief Monji Chebbi appeared on TV Tuesday night to apologize for the "professional mistake". Officials now say that the publishers will face prosecution.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The administration of Barack Obama's plans to usher in a "new era of transparency" by privatizing Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Requests under private contractors may have just resulted in new problems.

Danielle Ivory of Bloomberg reports that approximately 200 companies won more than 250 FOIA contracts from 25 governmental agencies. Bloomberg could only get a hold of one out of the 12 that they tried, and that one company, AECOM, had only one comment: "No comment."

"Since fiscal 2009," writes Ivory, "the year President Barack Obama took office, spending on FOIA-related contracts has jumped about 40 percent, leaving transparency advocates wondering who’s making the decisions on whether records should be kept secret."

Ivory points out that FOIA requests rose 5 percent from '10 ro '11, but "backlogged requests" also increased 20 percent during the same time period.

So if the administration is paying more for contractors, why has the FOIA compliance stiffened? In fact, another recent Bloomberg report gave Obama a glaring F on transparency, with 19 of the 20 requested departments failing to comply with the law.

John Winderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a transparency group, told Ivory:

“If I was in charge of an agency and wanted to create an unaccountable FOIA process, the first thing I would do is put an outside contractor in charge of it because fewer of our accountability laws apply to them. It would just be another layer between me and the public.”

These contractors often just review materials and make recommendations, which the government Agency either approves or rejects. Contractors who need security clearances to view materials have all been properly cleared.

Kade Ellis, popular privacy blogger and rights activist working at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that one of these companies that reviews FOIA requests has a pending case:

"There could be very serious conflicts of interest involved when private companies are tasked with managing the processes whereby sensitive (and likely embarrassing or damning) government secrets are disclosed to the public. Case in point is CACI International, a military and intelligence contractor that is facing a lawsuit alleging its employees participated in the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. CACI is one of the companies the federal government has outsourced FOIA work to over the past ten years."

NOW SEE: These SEALs Came Up With An iPhone App That The Government Hates >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This week, a congressional report warned the U.S. government and American companies from doing business with Chinese network-equipment maker Huawei, saying it benefitted from state assistance and labeling it a security threat.

Huawei and China have lashed back at the report's claims. A Chinese minister called them "groundless accusations."

But one thing's not in dispute: Huawei has gotten help from an icon of American technology, IBM, on its rise to the top, the Wall Street Journal reports.

IBM consultants helped Huawei modernize its management processes, expand research and development internationally, and win customers, especially in Europe, Huawei executive Charles Ding told the Journal. IBM also sold Huawei chips and other technology.

Some say the congressional report could spur a trade war if the result is that Huawei gets shut out of the U.S. market in favor of American companies like Cisco.

Huawei's ties to IBM show how complex and intertwined the business world's relationships are.

Please follow SAI: Enterprise on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Massachusetts' Republican Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren faced off Wednesday for the third of four debates in the state's hotly-contested Senate race. 

In a marked departure from the first two debates, Wednesday night's showdown was a relatively subdued affair — Brown didn't mention Warren's Native American heritage controversy once. 

The most interesting part of the debate during the final question, when moderator Jim Madigan asked the candidates to say whether they would favor cutting the deficit over closing down military bases in western Massachusetts, where the debate took place. 

On the surface, this look like just a local issue. But the exchange between Brown and Warren actually beautifully laid out the contours of the national debate over military budget cuts, using a concrete example that illustrates exactly why and how voters will be affected by the cuts. 

Watch the video below: 

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The sister of Navy SEAL Glen Doherty spoke out Wednesday night about the controversy surrounding the politicization of her brother's death in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last month. 

In an interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, Kate Quigley said she does not share her mother's anger toward Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has spoken frequently about meeting Doherty at a campaign event. Doherty's mother told a Boston reporter this week that she wished Romney wouldn't make her son's death "part of his political agenda." 

"My mother is angry, and she’s grieving," Quigley said. "The fact of the matter is what Governor Mitt Romney said about Glen is true, and he called him a hero and we’re honored by that. And we’re honored by what Obama did for the homecoming. The fact of the matter is being an American hero can be completely bipartisan. Everybody wants to point fingers and play the blame game – let’s blame the terrorists.” 

But, she said, "the politics of it all are disturbing." 

"If Glen were here, he'd be the first one to reach across party lines and diffuse the situation," Quigley added. "The politics should be taken out of it, and let's just celebrate this American hero and the other American hero that fought right along side him that night." 

Watch the interview below, courtesy of CNN: 

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia and Syria have condemned Turkey for forcing a civilian Syrian plane traveling from Moscow to Damascus to land in the Turkish capital last night on suspicions it was carrying military equipment.

Today Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the grounded Syrian plane was carrying Russian-made "military equipment and ammunition" destined for the Syrian defense ministry, Reuters reports. Erdogan then said Turkey was still examining the equipment and that "the necessary will follow," according to the Associated Press.

"Now the situation has changed. This is linked to the fact that Turkey has become too deeply involved in Syrian domestic affairs," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said in a statement reported by The New York Times. "I think tension will now develop in the relationship between Russia and Turkey.” 

Turkey scrambled two F-16s to intercept the Syrian Air jetliner and force it to land in Ankara.

Turkish media reported that authorities confiscated radio receivers, jammers, antennas and “equipment that are thought to be missile parts,” according to The AP.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry released a statement saying that the plane was not carrying any kind of weapons or prohibited goods and all contents on the plane were listed on the plane's manifest, Reuters reports.

Syrian Transport Minister Mahmoud Said was quoted by Lebanese media as saying the move amounted to "air piracy which contradicts civil aviation treaties."

An official at the Russian Embassy in Ankara said the cargo “was not of Russian origin," and a Russian arms exporter told Reuters that if they needed "to send any kind of military-technical equipment or arms it would have been carried out properly and not through any illegal means."

Moscow then accused Turkey of endangering the lives of Russian passengers and Syria added that the passengers were in a "very bad psychological state," according to The Guardian. 

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu countered that the cargo was "illegal" and "objectionable" and "should have been reported," BBC reports.  

SEE ALSO: FORMER AMBASSADOR: Russia Is Caught On The Losing Side In The Syrian Civil War >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Soviet Union secretly planned to leave 100 nuclear weapons on Cuba after the end of the crisis but were so scared by Fidel Castro's instability that they made up a law to retrieve them.

Documents released by the US National Security Archive disclose how close Cuba came in 1962 to becoming Latin America's first nuclear power.

Minutes of a meeting with Anastas Mikoyan, the Soviet deputy prime minister, show Castro was furious at the USSR ending the crisis by agreeing to remove its strategic missiles.

Unknown to Washington, the Soviets had left 100 tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba, and documents suggest they planned to train Cubans how to use them.

But Mikoyan was so concerned at Castro's erratic behaviour during a diplomatic visit that he wrote back to Moscow that they must urgently take back the remaining bombs.

"What do you think we are?" an emotional Castro asked during the four-hour November 22 meeting. "A zero on the Left, a dirty rag. We tried to help the Soviet Union to get out of a difficult situation."

Mikoyan was driven to cite a non-existent Soviet law banning the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to other countries. "And when are you going to repeal that law?" Castro asked. "We will see," he said.

The documents, which came from the archives of Mikoyan's late son, feature in a new book titled The Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis.

SEE ALSO: How Israel Received Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material From a US Company >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »