We are so screwed if the surge has come to this.

From Inside the Pentagon today:

AIR FORCE LEADS SERVICES IN DISPATCHING MORE MILITARY LAWYERS TO IRAQ

May 17, 2007 — The Air Force has told U.S. field commanders it will significantly boost the number of military attorneys deployed to Iraq in support of the new security crackdown, according to the service’s top two judge advocates. Begun in mid-February, the U.S. troop surge to Iraq has led to a spike in the number of suspects arrested.

Additional military lawyers are badly needed to prepare prosecutable cases against suspected insurgents and death squad members, according to Maj. Gen. Jack Rives, the Air Force judge advocate general, and his deputy, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap.

The Air Force maintains the fewest boots on the ground in Iraq among the four military services, while Army and Marine Corps infantry arguably play the most central military role in countering the insurgency. But the two air generals emphasized how critical the establishment of law and order will be in stabilizing Iraq.

The other services also are increasing their legal presence in Iraq this spring, but in fewer numbers.

* * *
Criminal prosecution, like prisoner detention, is undertaken jointly by American forces and the Iraqis. An underdeveloped Iraqi justice system complicates efforts for even the most skilled lawyers and judges, officials say.

One factor leading to the releases has been insufficient evidence in prisoner case files to justify continued detention — a problem that defense officials say the new boost in military lawyers is, in part, aimed at mitigating.

* * *
Rives and Dunlap told ITP in an interview this week they will send 30 more JAG personnel — including 18 military lawyers and 12 paralegals — to the Persian Gulf nation by this summer, augmenting 57 already in place. The new deployments will boost that service’s JAG staff in Iraq to 87.

All kidding aside here, there are two important things to take away from this article:

1) The Air Force's Quest for Relevance. Benched with a sideline role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relegated to a mere appendix at the back of the new counterinsurgency manual, the Air Force is looking for a way to be relevant to America's wars. Both Abu Muqawama and your correspondent agree that as a general matter, airpower is antithetical to counterinsurgency. Soldiers need fire support in this kind of war, but they don't need the kind that the Air Force likes to provide. Although the Air Force is experimenting with ever more precise munitions, and smaller munitions, those do not solve the more fundamental disconnect between airpower and counterinsurgency. So what's an Air Force to do? How can the Air Force justify its force structure, hardware, and manpower purchases to Congress?

Notwithstanding some absolutely critical contributions the Air Force is making to the war effort (see, e.g., the top-notch USAF medical facility at Balad), the Air Force has a real problem here. They're starving for tangible ways they can show they're relevant to counterinsurgency and small wars, and incidents like those in Afghanistan recently aren't helping. I'm glad to see the Air Force leaning forward with initiatives like this one, recognizing that they can play an important supporting role in counterinsurgency operations by providing logistics support, staff, and personnel. Lord knows their overstretched brethren in the Army and Marines could use the help.

2) Catch and Release. I understand the "rule of law" issues in Iraq fairly well from my tour as an adviser to the Iraqi police, during which I also worked closely with the Iraqi jails and courts. The challenges facing this system are enormous. However, I'm not sure that "catch and release" accurately describes the problem. In my experience, "catch and release" was a sign that the system was working. Most of the detainees swept up by U.S. forces and Iraqi forces were not guilty of anything. The system works when these men are given a hearing before an Iraqi judge; when the judge considers the evidence; and when the judge makes a decision based on that evidence. In many instances, that will result in a release. I think that's a good thing, because it's a sign that the justice system works.

It's also a very powerful form of "propaganda by deed" — something which is always important in counterinsurgency. Showing the people that the system works builds faith in the system, and ultimately, in the rule of law. I understand this frustrates American and Iraqi soldiers, to see the detainees they capture be released by the system a few weeks later. It frustrates cops in the states as well. But this is the essence of the rule of law: that the state may only deprive one of his/her liberty when authorized by law, and with due process of law.

The AP reports that the first tests have begun for the rail line connecting North and South Korea through the 4-kilometer-wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Hardly a "demilitarized" zone, the border remains the most heavily fortified political boundary in the world, home to millions of landmines, troops, and pieces of military equipment. Today's news marks an important thaw in relations between the two Koreas, and maybe more. According to the AP:

The one-time test run of trains through the 2 1/2 no man's land along two restored tracks on the west and east sides of the peninsula comes after repeated delays since the rail lines were linked in 2003 — and despite unresolved tensions over the North's nuclear weapons.

* * *
The tests include two five-car trains with 150 people aboard — one departing from the North and another from the South. Both trains will return later Thursday after spending a few hours on the opposite side.

On the western side of the border, 17 miles of track have been laid between the South's Munsan and Kaesong in the North. The new eastern line links North Korea's Diamond Mountain with Jejin in the South across 16 miles of track.

Soliders in camouflage uniforms opened the barbed wire-topped gates to the DMZ on the western track to allow the train to pass, while a flurry of white balloons was released into the sky as the railcars headed into the border zone that runs the entire 241-kilometer-long (156-mile-long) width of the peninsula.

One of the passengers on the train, Yang Hyun-wook, head of the Seoul office of the Korea Railway Corporation, said the journey would be emotional.

"I think it should have happened earlier, but I hope this will be an opportunity for South and North Korea to become one," Yang, 55, said before boarding.

The Washington Post (and others) report that the White House has tapped Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute to be its "war czar." In that position, Lt. Gen. Lute will be responsible for quarterbacking the "interagency process" — a Byzantine system of communication, coordination and policymaking which, in theory, is supposed to produce coherent national security strategy execution. According to the Post:

In the newly created position, Lute will coordinate often disjointed military and civilian operations and manage the Washington side of the same troop increase he resisted before Bush announced the plan in January. Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq.

The selection capped a difficult recruitment process for the White House, as its initial candidates rejected the job. At least five retired four-star generals approached by the White House or intermediaries refused to be considered. Lute, a three-star general now serving as chief operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in effect will jump over many superiors as he moves to the West Wing and assumes authority to deal directly with Cabinet secretaries and top commanders.

"General Lute is a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done," Bush said in a statement.

In choosing Lute, Bush picked a key internal voice of dissent during the administration review that led to the troop increase. Reflecting the views of other members of the Joint Chiefs, Lute argued that a short-term "surge" would do little good and that any sustained increase in forces had to be matched by equal emphasis on political and economic steps, according to officials informed about the deliberations.

Lute believed the situation in Iraq reflected the same mistakes as the ineffective and disorganized response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a source familiar with the debate. Like others at the Pentagon, he also was aggravated because civilian agencies, in his view, had not done nearly enough to help stabilize Iraq. And he was outspoken about the increasing strains on the U.S. military, officials said.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Lute raised his concerns during talks before his selection. "He had the same skepticism a lot of us had," Hadley said. "That's one of the reasons we designed the strategy the way we did." By joining the White House, Hadley said, Lute can ensure that economic and political elements of the plan are implemented. "In some sense, he's part of the cure for the problems he was concerned about."

Until Bush decided this spring to create the position, the highest-ranking White House official working exclusively on Iraq and Afghanistan was a deputy national security adviser reporting to Hadley. Lute, by contrast, will have the rank of assistant to the president, just as Hadley does, and report directly to Bush, while also holding the title of deputy national security adviser.

Okay, I'm still scratching my head over this one. None of my thoughts are new on this, but I thought I'd air them anyway:

1) Isn't this guy supposed to be the "war czar"? If he can't make the interagency process work by knocking a few heads and firing a few cabinet officers, who can?

2) What's going to happen the first time that Lt. Gen. Lute doesn't get his way? Imagine a hypothetical where Gen. David Petraeus asks for more Justice Department personnel to promote the rule of law , and Al Gonzales tells him to go swimming in the Tigris. What's a 3-star general to do? Will the White House back Lute and tell Al to cough up the people? Or will Lute get steamrolled? Assuming the latter happens, will he suck it up and soldier on, resign quietly, or resign noisily?

3) How are the other agencies going to react to having yet another general in charge of policy? Maybe about as well as State reacted to having Jay Garner appointed as the head of ORHA during the early stages of the war? I understand that the military is the main effort right now in Iraq. I also understand that's a deeply flawed organizational paradigm, because counterinsurgency is a political endeavor, and it may make a lot more sense to put a political animal (someone like Robert "Blowtorch Bob" Komer) in charge. (What? You've never heard of Blowtorch Bob? Read this! And this!)

4) How broken is the U.S. national security apparatus that we need a "czar" to run it? Is the NSC that f---ed up that it needs a 3-star with some juice in the Pentagon to make things work? (This is a rhetorical question; the only possible answer is yes.) Or are the agencies that stubborn? (Again, yes.) Where and how did the National Security Act and Goldwater-Nichols Act run aground that we've come to this? (Long story.) Could it be that we have the greatest military in the world, capped by the most ineffective and bloated bureaucracy ever created?

Good luck Lt. Gen Lute — you've got a tough fight in front of you.

In yesterday's Los Angeles Times, Nancy Vogel reported that the California National Guard is alone among the 50 states in not providing state-funded tuition assistance to its National Guard troops. Although soldiers can still get the reserve GI Bill, this state offers no separate benefit to make up the difference between that amount and UC/CSU tuition, nor any separate GI Bill-like benefits of its own. According to the Times:

California is the only state that gives no such help to those who commit to National Guard duty. Year after year, bills to change that have died in the Legislature because lawmakers faced budget shortfalls or opposed the war in Iraq, among other reasons. One aid law did pass, four years ago, but it has yet to help anyone because it hasn't been funded.

State military officials say their surveys of Guard members show that help with education costs is the No. 1 thing that would encourage them to reenlist.

* * *
Forty-nine states offer National Guard members benefits such as free state university tuition and stipends of $500 a semester.

And it gets worse. Apparently, our vaunted state legislature has known about this for years, and has even tried to do something about it. But in typical political fashion, the legislature has failed to do anything, citing reasons that are specious (at best):

State Sen. Jack Scott (D-Altadena) chairs the Senate Education Committee, which has scuttled attempts by the California Guard to get tuition assistance for members. College aid ought to be based on financial need, not on membership in a group, Scott said, and if the federal government deploys the Guard overseas, then it should give members the same educational benefits as enlisted men and women, who can get more than $1,000 a month for school.

"It's the federal government that's made the decision to go to war," Scott said.

Assemblyman Chuck Devore (R-Irvine), who retired last month from the Guard after 24 years, said the Legislature is out of touch with the military.

Only 13 of the state's 120 lawmakers have military experience, and Devore said that since the closure of many bases in recent decades, most Californians have no regular contact with the military.

And some lawmakers are reluctant to do anything that could be viewed as support for the war in Iraq, he said.

* * *
California created a Guard education aid program in 2003. But the Legislature and governor failed to fund it until last year, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger allocated $200,000, enough to give 100 Guard members $2,000 each for tuition in return for another year of service.

No one has been able to use the money, however, because the California Student Aid Commission hasn't finished writing regulations on how it may be spent. And the law that created the program expires in two months.

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) is trying to extend the law.

"There's great pomp and ceremony about lowering the flag to half-mast…. But show me money," he said.

Schwarzenegger has $1.7 million for tuition aid for the Guard in his proposed 2007-08 budget. On Thursday, a Senate budget subcommittee rejected that request.

Subcommittee chairman Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), echoing the view that the federal government should do more, told Guard officials that the issue needs to be vetted by Scott's education committee.

I'm sorry, but that is flat ass wrong. We give benefits to veterans in the recognition that nothing can compensate them for the service they render to the country. They're not a group analogous to any other special interest group, as Sen. Scott intimates. And that's merely where the flawed thinking begins. Clearly, the state legislature just doesn't get it, which is a damn shame.

Memo to Gov. Schwarzenegger: Make an end run around the recalcitrant legislature to do the right thing here. In your role as a member of the governing boards for the UC and CSU systems, I suggest you propose that those systems independently offer a fee remission or waiver to all currently-serving members of the California National Guard, and all veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle. Will this cost money? In the short term, yes. But in the long term, these educational benefits will return themselves to the state many times over, just as the GI Bill fueled the American economy during the mid-20th Century. But don't do it for the fiscal reasons. Do it because California owes something to its sons and daughters who serve in uniform, and because it's the right thing to do.