The Pentagon recently conducted an assessment of Taiwan's air
defenses and graded as poor the island's ability to defend itself
against Chinese aircraft and missiles.
A defense source said the report shows "Taiwan cannot defend itself
from aerial threats.''
The assessment made in February by military and civilian specialists
is becoming a political football in the latest clash over Taiwan arms
sales.
According to several U.S. officials, the report was initially
unclassified but quickly stamped "secret'' and kept from Congress. We
are told that pro-Beijing officials in the Clinton administration have
"perverted'' its findings to bolster the Clinton administration's freeze
on advanced arms sales to Taiwan, despite the buildup of Chinese
offensive and defensive missiles opposite the island.
These officials say Taiwan's air-defense shortcomings mean it can't
"absorb'' newer or more modern air-defense weapons beyond its current
arsenal of Patriot, HAWK and other anti-aircraft missiles.
Pentagon officials say the report shows the urgent need to provide
more defense assistance -- both hardware and training -- to the
Taiwanese.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., organized a group of seven
congressmen who asked to review the Taiwan air-defense report. But the
Pentagon thus far has said no. Mr. Rohrabacher yesterday asked the House
Committee on Government Reform in a letter to subpoena the study.
Interagency discussions on Taiwan's requests for Aegis-equipped
warships, anti-radar HARM missiles, long-range air-launched missiles and
other weapons will begin in about a week, we are told. The talks are
expected to be contentious.
Uplifting commandos
President Clinton took so many Air Force cargo jets and tankers on
his recent South Asia trip that the commando community is starting to
worry. Members wonder whether there will be too few planes left to take
them to a crisis spot during a presidential trip.
The just-concluded India-Bangladesh-Pakistan-Oman-Switzerland jaunt
required
one-third of the Air Force's total cargo lift capacity. This comes at a
time when the service is conducting a study expected to confirm it
already has a shortage of strategic lift capability in relation to
operational requirements.
"This is fundamentally causing the military to do more with less,''
an administration source tells us.
The 10-day trip required 177 strategic lift missions and a total of
460 mission launches. This number included the cargo jet missions
(defined as going from point A to B and back to A) as well as flights by
aerial refuelers and spare aircraft.
The service's Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in
Illinois operates all the planes. But a spokesman said he is not allowed
to comment on presidential travel. He referred questions about cost to
the White House.
"I don't think we've got any kind of a final cost figure on the
trips,'' said White House spokesman P.J. Crowley.
Outside experts expect the trip -- Mr. Clinton's most costly -- to
hit taxpayers for $40 million to $50 million.
"Obviously there was a substantial investment of resources in support
of the
president's trip,'' Mr. Crowley said.
He said it required a larger number of long-range cargo jets because
of the great distances traveled. Extra helicopters were also required
because the infrastructure in the host countries was not conducive to
road travel.
"This was a very complex trip of a scale that probably presidents
don't do that often, and clearly it involved a substantial commitment of
resources by the Air Force. They did a great job of supporting the
president.
"That investment will yield handsome returns when you think of new
trade possibilities, environmental improvements and progress on
proliferation and security issues.''
Illegal talks
President Clinton is violating another law -- in addition to Privacy
Act violations identified by a federal judge this week. The president
stated in a report to Congress last week that his administration "is not
implementing'' a 1997 side agreement to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty. The certification allows the Clinton administration to spend
money on ABM Treaty talks that began in Geneva last week.
The ABM side agreement, called a memorandum of understanding, will
add Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to Russia as the legal replacements
for the defunct Soviet Union.
The agreement is viewed by critics as a deliberate White House trick
to make formal ABM Treaty changes -- like those permitting a national
missile defense -- more difficult. It would give Russia three additional
votes in sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) in
Geneva, where ABM Treaty issues are discussed. The U.S. side has only
one vote.
The White House, fearing it would be voted down, is refusing to
submit the ABM memorandum of understanding on the successor states to
the Senate for approval despite promising senators it would do so.
Congress then passed a law last year prohibiting the administration from
spending any money on the SCC talks until the president certifies the
successor-states agreement is not being implemented.
Well, the secret instructions to U.S. negotiators at the Geneva
talks, which began March 22, told American diplomats they may
"negotiate, and may reach agreement with other SCC delegations on the
text'' of a missile-defense accord on testing interceptor missiles.
The instructions also tell U.S. delegates that by negotiating but not
signing an agreement, they can avoid violating the law. The Russian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian and Kazakhstani sides will be told at the
meetings that "it is the U.S. position that our efforts to ensure that
the SCC agreements receive favorable advice and consent in the U.S.
Senate could be undermined by giving our Congress the impression that
their approval has been circumvented,'' according to the secret
instructions.
State Department lawyers told White House arms-control specialist
Steven Andreasen during a meeting March 20 that the latest Geneva talks
would in fact be implementing the agreement, thus violating the law. Mr.
Andreasen then accused them of "disloyalty to the president'' and forced
them to back down and approve the questionable certification to
Congress.
A White House spokesman said "all agencies concurred'' in the report
to Congress.
"If the administration is negotiating with Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Ukraine over what will become binding agreements ... it is implementing
the MOU,'' said one official close to the dispute. "The
administration's contention that withholding signatures from negotiated
documents is sufficient to meet the law is likewise arbitrary and
absurd."
Readiness uptick
A bit of good news on the combat readiness front. Yes, the Army,
Navy and Air Force are still struggling to find enough recruits. And
yes, a spare-parts crisis persists, increasing the number of unusable
aircraft cannibalized for gadgets.
But the shortages of able-bodied men and women in frontline combat
units is
slowly being remedied.
The Army, for instance, reports a gap of 5,151 soldiers in its 10
active divisions totaling 161,204 personnel. That's down from 6,500 a
few months ago.
Army officers said the improvement can be traced to a drive by Gen.
Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, to man the 10 divisions at full
strength.
"Shinseki wants them manned,'' said an officer. "I think the Army is
doing better at moving people around. Just in talking with commanders in
the field, he recognized that was a problem. He's going to make the
war-fighting units the best they can be.''
Among the hard-to-get specialties: fire-support artillerymen,
wheeled-vehicles mechanics, fuel handlers, voice-intercept analysts and
intelligence analysts.
Another officer said the goal is to have 10 divisions and two
regiments fully stocked by Sept. 30. The rest of the operational Army
would meet that goal by 2002 and the institutional Army a year later.
"We're having great difficulty meeting the chief's directives to
fully man the force structure,'' this soldier said.
The Air Force is doing a better job of retaining critically needed
pilots.
Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters said the service projected a
2,000-pilot gap by now, but it actually has a shortage of 1,200.
"Our enlisted retention rates for the last few months have been
better than the same month last year,'' he said. "And indeed, in
February, we retained almost 60 percent of our first-term airmen against
a goal of 55 percent, and we retained almost three-quarters of our
second-term airmen against a goal of 75 percent."