- Text smaller
- Text bigger
A senior Pentagon security official sees the major threat to the U.S.
military today as enemies who use “asymmetrical” means. J. William
Leonard, deputy assistant defense secretary for security and information
operations, provided a threat briefing this month for a group of
corporate security specialists.
While no military force on earth can defeat, say, the U.S. Air Force,
Mr. Leonard said, the Air Force can be “functionally” defeated by
attacking a logistics system heavily dependent on information
“Offensive information operations is obviously a threat we have to
contend with,” he told some 200 security managers at the National
Security Institute’s Impact 2000 meeting. One example of a strategic
information attack: A foreign power attacks U.S. medical databases and
changes blood polarities of U.S. military personnel. That could result
in deadly transfusions of blood to the wounded in a conflict.
“Think of what that would do to a nation’s warfighting capability,
what sort of chilling effect a simple event like that would have,” Mr.
Leonard said. Computer attacks are a “very significant” asymmetric
threat. “We’re in a continual state of war within the cyber-arena,” he
said. “It’s not an armed conflict, a conflict where bullets are flying.
But it’s a conflict nonetheless where electrons fly back and forth
through information systems.”
Strategic nuclear weapons continue to be a threat, he said, as are
terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “The strategic
nuclear threat is very real,” he said, noting that Russia recently
revised warfighting doctrine to lower the threshold for their use.
As for China’s strategic nuclear buildup, Mr. Leonard said, “The
Chinese continue to embark on a modernization of their strategic nuclear
weapons capabilities. And of course you have rogue states like North
Korea and Iran who continue to attempt to develop not only a nuclear
capability but a missile capability to deliver those weapons on a
strategic basis.” The latter statement is contrary to the Clinton
administration’s public position that
the 1994 Agreed Framework has “frozen” North Korea’s development of
The Dutch example
Back in 1993, when Congress was engrossed in debating gays in the
military, liberals used the Dutch military as an example of the virtues
of allowing open homosexuality in the ranks.
Now, the Dutch armed forces are setting an example for how to run a
This summer, the frigate HMS Bloys was sailing the Mediterranean Sea
when six of 11 women sailors on top deck proudly bared their breasts to
the crew of a passing Italian warship. Male crew members, standing
behind the frolicking women, are seen smiling.
A photo of this exhibition in unit cohesion was splashed across the
front page this month of Amsterdam’s De Telegraaf newspaper.
An Associated Press story said the Dutch ship’s captain was
reprimanded. “We are not at all happy with this,” a navy spokesman
The U.S. Navy has used sex-integrated crews on support ships since
the 1970s. It broke the all-male barrier for combat ships in 1994. The
service has encountered some problems in enforcing rules against onboard
sex, but to our knowledge does not endorse on-deck striptease.
“It appears funny but it’s not a joke,” said Elaine Donnelly, who
heads the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes women in combat.
“I think it must be seen as a cautionary note as the debate continues
about the culture of the military. Should it become more like the
European culture or civilian world? Of course the answer is no. The
Netherlands and these other countries depend on us for their ultimate
Iceland heats up
The Pentagon is in danger of losing a key overseas facility — the
military base at Keflavik, Iceland, near the capital of Reykjavik.
Military officials said a new law proposed by the Icelandic government
calls for blocking U.S. companies from contracts related to supplying
the U.S. troops on the North Atlantic island nation.
If the legislation passes, “It would be a tripwire for us to remove
our forces,” said one military officer who spoke on the condition of
“It’s the only forward deployed military base in this region and if
we pull out it would leave us without a major base,” the officer said.
Keflavik is home to a U.S. naval air station and the Air Force’s 85th
Group, as well as a detachment of Marines and some Army personnel. The
base includes F-15 and F-16 fighters as well as strategic KC-135
air-refueling tankers, C-130 transports and helicopters. It is a
frequent stopping-off point and refueling post for troops and cargo
traveling from the United States to Europe and other parts of the world.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has written to Iceland Prime
Minister David Oddsson about the problem. “The legislation would
restrict contracts and that would increase our costs,” said a State
Department official. “The problem we have is that the legislation was
introduced without any consultation with us. We should talk about it and
not get hit with it.”
The prime minister is considering a U.S. request to delay the
legislation. It was introduced in February and already has cleared two
People looking for consistency in the White House enforcing the
federal Privacy Act will not find it in the case of former Navy Lt.
Patrick J. Burns.
This month, the Defense Department inspector general testified that
Kenneth Bacon, spokesman for Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, ordered
the release of parts of Linda Tripp’s protected personnel file to a
reporter for New Yorker magazine. The IG said the Justice Department
declined to file criminal charges.
Compare that case to the fate of Lt. Burns. A back-seat weapons
officer on the F-14 fighter, and by all accounts a dedicated officer,
Mr. Burns was taken off the promotion list for violating the same act.
In his case, he distributed training records for two women aviators who
he believed were pushed through qualification school.
President Clinton himself signed the order revoking Lt. Burns’
promotion to lieutenant commander, thus forcing his retirement after 20
Lt. Burns said he considered the women’s training a critical safety
issue and tried to raise the issue up the chain of command before
releasing the records.
The 1998 memorandum to Mr. Clinton reads, in part, “The secretary of
the Navy withheld Lt. Burns’ name from nomination for intentionally
violating the Privacy Act by releasing the personal training records of
another officer to an individual outside the federal government who
lacked authority to receive such records.”
“Your signature below will constitute removal of Lt. Burns’ name from
the promotion selection board report.” The memo was approved by the
signature of “William J. Clinton.”
The White House press office declined comment yesterday.