Ambassador talk
Joseph Prueher, U.S. ambassador to China, is under fire again. The
retired four-star admiral was in town this week and met with members of
Congress. According to congressional aides, Adm. Prueher told lawmakers
that he has been working in Beijing to convince Chinese leaders to pull
back the mobile short-range missiles being deployed in large numbers
opposite Taiwan, in Fujian province.
Our sources say the ambassador has been telling the Chinese the
removal of the missiles “would make the people in the United States feel
like they were actually backing off the Taiwan issue.”
Adm. Prueher, the aides say, also suggested to the Chinese how they
could carry out a bit of threat-reduction-by-deception: “And besides, if
anything happened, the missiles could always be moved back quickly,” he
was quoted as saying.
The ambassador provided another curious explanation for urging the
Chinese to move their missiles: “It would undercut American hardliners
who think China is a threat,” he was quoted as telling lawmakers.
The remarks raised eyebrows from several aides who called Adm.
Prueher a “panda hugger” — critics’ term for pro-China officials and
their acolytes in academia. The corresponding label for the anti-Beijing
crowd from the huggers: “alarmists.”
Asked about the remarks, a State Department spokesman said Adm.
Prueher “didn’t think it was appropriate to discuss his private
conversations with folks on the Hill.”
The Chinese in the past have rejected U.S. appeals to pull back the
missiles. The Defense Intelligence Agency warns in secret reports that
the missiles could reach most of Taiwan’s major military bases with
little or no warning.
Adm. Prueher had his nomination held up temporarily last year by Sen.
Robert Smith, New Hampshire Republican, over questionable contacts with
the Chinese military. And in April, he was criticized for hosting a
dinner at his Beijing residence with three U.S. satellite makers and
Chinese satellite companies who were under federal investigation for
improperly sharing missile technology.
Navy transformed
Adm. Vernon Clark, the new chief of naval operations, is living up
to his reputation as a revolutionary thinker who will shake up the
orthodoxy.
Navy officers tell us that Adm. Clark is preaching, in so many words,
“it’s the requirements, stupid,” as the sea service participates in the
Pentagon’s second Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The officers said
the chief wants planners to justify any bid for new ships or sailors
with a concrete requirement, not a fuzzy scenario.
Adm. Clark already has ordered a shake up of his Pentagon staff,
effective Oct. 1. He has established the new positions of deputy chief
of naval operations for warfare requirements and programs, and deputy
CNO for fleet readiness and logistics.
Unlike before, the newly configured warfare office will deal strictly
with the needs of the fleet, leaving budgeting concerns to another
office. He wants a constant dialogue between his staff and the force,
which suffers shortages of ships, sailors, spare parts and training
hours. A Navy memo from the top also promises changes in readiness and
training.
“A flag-level study group will be established … to examine the
appropriate alignment for Navy training responsibilities and
resources,” the memo states. “This group will report its
recommendations to the Chief of Naval Operations coincident with the
results of the full-time effort to be charted at the Naval War College
to determine how to initiate and implement a
revolution in Navy training.”
Adm. Clark’s appetite to shake things up may mean he is receptive to
new ideas from the outside.
The boldest proposal yet comes from Rep. Ike Skelton, D.-Miss., who
would become House Armed Services chairman if Democrats win back the
House in November.
Earlier this week, as top admirals and Marine Corps generals dined on
asparagus and pine nut salad, salmon, and filet mignon, Mr. Skelton
called on the Navy to transform itself into a lighter, more mobile
fleet.
“I’m not much given to dramatic statements but let me say this
clearly: America should rebuild its Navy. And we should begin now,” Mr.
Skelton said of a fleet that has dipped to 316 ships, about 30 below a
floor set by President Clinton in 1993. His appearance was sponsored by
the Washington-based Business Executives for National Security.
The Navy is building seven ships each year, an insufficient rate to
sustain even a 300-ship force, experts said.
Mr. Skelton said the Navy should continue to build large-hull ships
to patrol the open oceans — the so called “blue water Navy.” But it
also needs to develop a new generation of smaller attack ships that
could operate in coastal waters, such as enforcing the oil embargo
against Iraq.
“I know that some find it hard or even distasteful to imagine a Navy
with smaller ships,” he said. “But it is hard or even distasteful to
imagine a Navy rendered irrelevant by a focus on yesterday’s missions or
shrunken to Lilliputian proportions by a tunnel-vision fealty to large
platforms.”
Air Clinton II
We reported earlier how the Pentagon was forced to divert scores of
military aircraft to ferry President Clinton and company during visits
to India and Pakistan. Now comes word that the extensive presidential
travel is hurting the ability of the military to move troops and
supplies.
A military officer revealed serious readiness problems with the U.S.
Transportation Command, the joint military center set up after the
Persian Gulf war to centralize all military movements.
According to the officer, the number of military flights increased
dramatically during the Clinton administration. It used to be that a
normal mission month for military flights was an average of between 50
and 60 aircraft flights — everything from huge C-5 cargo jets to F-117
training flights. Those figures included some “presidential” missions
such as Air Force One and other executive travel.
Statistics compiled by the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command showed a
sharp rise from that average, increases that are continuing as Mr.
Clinton steps up his travel in the waning months of his presidency.
According to the statistics, the average number of military flights
in 1992 was 76 missions a month. By 1996, that figure had increased to
86 missions a month. In the first eight months of 2000, the number had
jumped to a whopping 140 flights a month. “The reason is Clinton,
Hillary and Gore,” our informant said. “It just blows my mind.”
The officer was talking about Mr. Clinton’s jaunts around the world
and the military flights to support first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
and her New York campaign for Senate, along with cross-country campaign
flights by Vice President Al Gore.
Regarding the exchange between Republican presidential candidate
George W. Bush who stated that two Army combat divisions are not ready
for duty, and Pentagon counterclaims that they are, a four-star Air
Force general at Air Mobility Command is quoted as saying, “They may
have those two divisions ready, but there’s no way we can move them
because we’re not ready.”
Numbers scrub
The Pentagon is deep into the process of writing a new national
military strategy and a force structure to match contained in the
congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review.
The Joint Staff — the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s planners and
functionaries — are leading the search for the right mix of strategy,
force structure and weapons.
War games are to begin shortly. The strategy is due out in June, with
the QDR out in September. Officers at the Pentagon say they expect the
reports to retain the primary military requirement of being able to
fight two major regional conflicts (MRC) nearly simultaneously.
Officers say they expect the QDR to endorse a ramp up in weapons
research and development, and procurement to replaced equipment worn out
by a decade of mini-wars and peacekeeping.
The two most likely flash points are South Korea and the Persian
Gulf. But last year, the Air Force itself fought the equivalent of a
major regional conflict in the skies over Serbia. So, even if tensions
ease on the Korean peninsula, QDR number-crunchers would be hesitant to
change the two MRC
scenario.
In this regard, Gen. Henry Shelton, JCS chairman, is required to
submit his independent assessment. Pentagon planners say that if the
general decides the two MRCs present an unacceptable risk to his
troops, he will say so.
The risks of increased casualties in a second war have shot up the
past year because of combat readiness shortfalls. Not all units have
sufficient weapons and men to carry out their missions.
WATCH: 2 Venezuelan gang members released from custody
WND Staff