National Security

FP's Situation Report: A drone debate rages before a strike

By Gordon Lubold

The Obama administration is debating a drone strike against an American in Pakistan suspected by some of plotting terrorist attacks. It's the first time the Obama administration has actively discussed killing an American since Obama imposed new restrictions on drone operations last spring. AP's Kim Dozier, who broke the story: "The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones. The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him. Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

"Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

"The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall."

Noting: Dozier did not report the country in which the citizen is thought to be; neither did the WaPo, which stood up a story after Dozier's; the NYT and the WSJ did report the individual was in Pakistan. Dozier's story here.

Welcome to Tuesday's edition of Situation Report. If you'd like to sign up to receive Situation Report, send us a note at gordon.lubold@foreignpolicy.com and we'll just stick you on. Like what you see? Please tell a friend.  And if you have a report you want teased, a piece of news, or a good tidbit, send it to us early for maximum tease, because if you see something, we hope you'll say something -- to Situation Report. And one more thing: please follow us @glubold.

The DIA's Mike Flynn today: the ANSF can't hold land. Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio: "Afghanistan's security forces are struggling to improve their combat capability as the U.S. withdraws intelligence, reconnaissance and bomb-detection technologies, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. The 340,000 members of the Afghan National Army and police "have shown progress in their ability to clear insurgents from contested areas but have exhibited problems holding cleared areas long-term," Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the Pentagon intelligence agency, said in testimony prepared for a Senate hearing [today].

"Flynn's prepared remarks, obtained in advance by Bloomberg News, underscore the fragility of Afghan security as the U.S. and its allies continue to withdraw forces and press President Hamid Karzai to sign an agreement permitting a continued international presence after this year. Flynn's assessment is in sharp contrast to assurances by top U.S. commanders in the field that Afghan forces are increasingly ready to take over." More here.

Page One: The Karzai Workaround: U.S. military revises withdrawal plans to wait until after President Hamid Karzai leaves office. The WSJ's Adam Entous and Julian Barnes: "...The option for waiting reflects a growing belief in Washington that there is little chance of repairing relations with Mr. Karzai and getting him to sign the bilateral security agreement before elections scheduled for the spring... The military plan is the most significant example to date of how the U.S. has sought to minimize its reliance on Mr. Karzai, whose refusal to sign the security agreement amid a flurry of anti-American statements has upset Washington policy makers. The White House has said Mr. Karzai's refusal has raised prospects that President Barack Obama will order a complete U.S. troop withdrawal this year. Afghan officials had no immediate comment.

Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have signaled their displeasure with Mr. Karzai by limiting their contacts with him. The U.S. and Afghan leaders haven't held a videoconference call to discuss the war effort since the summer, officials said. Mr. Hagel visited Afghanistan in December but didn't meet Mr. Karzai. Susan Rice, Mr. Obama's national security adviser, had a frosty meeting with Mr. Karzai in Kabul in November."

A senior U.S. official to the WSJ: "If he's not going to be part of the solution, we have to have a way to get past him... It's a pragmatic recognition that clearly Karzai may not sign the BSA and that he doesn't represent the voice of the Afghan people."

"...Under the revised plan Gen. Joseph Dunford, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, put together in recent weeks, the U.S. military will have all equipment in place by July to support a post-2014 force that includes 10,000 American troops, officials said. The equipment is likely to include helicopters and limited numbers of mine-resistant troop transport vehicles. It would mainly be used to protect bases that would be used for training and advising Afghan command units, and to house American spies and diplomats. That means the Pentagon will go into the summer prepared to accommodate either outcome: a presidential decision to keep 10,000 troops in Afghanistan post-2014 or an order to pull all of the troops out by year-end, officials said." More here.

A lotta talk today: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivers remarks at a ceremony commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the Allied Forces D-Day landing in Normandy with French President Francois Hollande at 3 p.m. at Arlington Cemetery; Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine H. Fox delivers remarks at the 2014 AFCEA WEST Conference at 11:30 a.m. EST in San Diego; U.S. Special Operations Command Commander Navy Adm. William McRaven was expected to deliver remarks on "Enabling SOCOM Partnership" at the SO/LIC Symposium and Exhibition 2014 at 8:15 a.m. EST in Washington; Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn testify at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on "Current and Future Worldwide Threats" at 9:30 a.m. EST, in room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Elissa Slotkin and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5) Navy Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe testify at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on "United States Security Policy and Defense Posture in the Middle East" at 10 a.m. EST, in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict Michael Lumpkin delivers remarks on "New Policy, Strategy and Resources for Global Posturing" at 1:15 p.m. EST, Washington Marriot, Washington, D.C.; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Derek Chollet participates in a discussion on "The American Military: War and Peace, Spending and Politics" at 6 p.m. EST (5 p.m. CST), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Neb.

A second look: A Navy admiral responds to the AP story over the weekend about the military's "chaotic military sex-abuse record." AP's Yuri Kageyama and Richard Lardner reported that "At U.S. military bases in Japan, most service members found culpable in sex crimes in recent years did not go to prison, according to internal Department of Defense documents. Instead, in a review of hundreds of cases filed in America's largest overseas military installation, offenders were fined, demoted, restricted to their bases or removed from the military. In about 30 cases, a letter of reprimand was the only punishment."

The Navy response: Rear Adm. Sean Buck is Director of the Navy's 21st Century Sailor Office had this to say in part: "...Unfortunately, the article provides numbers without context or background.  Without rebutting the article point by point, I want to raise a few issues that should be considered. First, it's important to note that there are multiple offenses covered under Article 120 of the UCMJ, ranging from rape to non-penetrating contact offenses, such as groping.  Second, each case is judged on its own merits, and if there is a conviction, the sentencing is awarded based on the unique facts in that case...The truth is, only relatively recently did we begin to understand the magnitude of the challenge.   As soon as we learn, we act - and not just piece by piece, but along the entire continuum of care." More on this from him here.

How the war in Iraq never really ended. Writing on FP, Jacopo Ottaviani explains a new map that shows violence over the years: "According to the latest report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, a total of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 security forces died in violent attacks across Iraq in 2013 -- making last year the bloodiest in Iraq since 2008. As the Syrian Civil War continues into its third year and militants, including al Qaeda-affiliate the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams, take advantage of Iraq's porous border, conflict has escalated again. Thousands are dying in a renewed wave of car bombs, suicide attacks, assassinations, and firefights. Violence in Iraq has swelled and ebbed since the U.S. invasion in 2003..."

The numbers: "Those numbers tapered off as the U.S. military and Iraqi government co-opted insurgents during the Anbar Awakening and surged forces to restive areas, and in 2010 the figure reached a low of 4,110 civilian deaths. From 2010 through 2012, even after the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Dec. 2011, civilian casualties hovered around 4,000 deaths each year. But, with a sharp spike in attacks since Spring 2013, that lull has ended. Iraq Body Count noted in its 2013 end-of-year review that "while 1,900 civilians were killed between October 2012 and March 2013, 6,300 were killed between April and October 2013."

"...This map tracks the toll of war and terrorism on Iraq's civilians over the last decade. It visualizes approximately 35,000 incidents from January 2003 to September 2013, drawing on data from the incidents dataset released by the Iraq Body Count. The dataset does not include any military or insurgent casualties. Every red flare represents a violent incident resulting in the death of one or more people. The brighter a flare is, the more incidents occurred in that specific time and place." Click here for the article as well as the map that shows 12 years of violence in 42 seconds.

A video emerges of the U.S. military's grab-and-go of Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, wanted for the embassy bombings, last fall. The WaPo obtained the vid. Read and watch the WaPo story here.

The Pentagon's Vikram Singh joins the Center for American Progress. Singh will become Vice President for National Security and International Policy at CAP, which announced the move yesterday. Singh is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia, but he is departing the building this month.

Speaking of Asia: Read here for an interview with Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the commander of "Pacific Air Forces," on Defense News in which he says the reason why there is a delta between resources and commitment in the Pacific Pivot: "I would say that the resources have not followed the comment of rebalance into the Pacific for a couple of reasons. One, because we still have ongoing operations obviously in the Middle East. And the other reason is [because] sequestration and the cuts in defense make it actually incredibly hard to find places to pivot money to the Pacific."

What is "even is the new up?" Carlisle: "One term that was used colloquially is "even is the new up." In other words, if you do not lose any money, you are actually gaining some. So I think with respect to the Pacific, in some ways, we were protected a little bit during sequestration. We had operations and maintenance funded more than other folks. But to say that there is a swing of resources - it is just left to the decline and the rest of other areas that are in a decline because of reduced defense budget." More here

I scream, you scream we all just scream: "Brisket ice cream" brings Gates Flashbacks for the Pentagon Press Corps. A restaurant in Washington announced that it has a special new ice cream, Brisket Ice Cream, "a devilish concoction of cold cream and brined, smoked beef drippings" that is now available "off-menu" at a restaurant called Firefly. This brought immediate flashbacks to travelling with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whose unyielding bias toward brisket lunches and dinners drew rolled eyes and jeers. So popular was brisket on the military jet on which he travelled that the press dubbed the plane "The Big Brisket." Some restaurant owner seems to be channeling Gates with this new ice cream. Situation Report obtained internal e-mails between Pentagon reporters regarding said restaurant. NBC's Courtney Kube: "Did Secretary Gates open a restaurant in DC?!?" After obtaining the e-mail, Situation Report asked Kube if she could be quoted. Kube's response: "As long as I don't have to review the ice cream."

 

National Security

FP's Situation Report: TFBSO's Jim Bullion, out

Congress puts VA on the hot seat; Hagel to hire ethics officer; USAID's Larry Sampler on negative reporting on Afg: 'don't believe it.'; Ethics: Passing and Failing 'The Washington Post Test;' and a bit more.  

By Gordon Lubold

Page One: Congress turns up the heat on the VA and considers a ban on executive bonuses. The WSJ's Michael Phillips and Ben Kesling: "Congress is poised to tighten its leash on the Department of Veterans Affairs over its response to what lawmakers say are management and medical errors, just as VA facilities are flooded with a new generation of injured troops. In a rare show of bipartisanship, top members of the congressional committees that oversee the VA are increasingly frustrated with the agency in the wake of incidents ranging from a patient's death after an altercation with a nursing assistant in Louisiana to a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in Pennsylvania. Lawmakers say these episodes reflect a lack of accountability at the 1,700 VA hospitals, clinics and other facilities.

"Congress now appears likely to impose legislative penalties on the VA. The House last week unanimously passed a bill that included a five-year ban on bonuses for senior VA executives. The Senate is considering less severe restrictions on performance pay. The chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Jeff Miller (R., Fla.), says he plans to introduce a measure this week that would make it easier to fire or demote hospital directors and other executives whose performance falls short."

Says Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine, the top Democrat on the House VA committee to the Journal: "VA needs to more directly and explicitly measure each leader's contribution... If they do not, they will never be able to truly hold themselves accountable to veterans, or the American taxpayer."

"The dispute has taken a testy turn in recent weeks, with Mr. Miller and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki swapping comments about VA accountability practices. In a Jan. 31 letter to Mr. Miller, the secretary defended the agency's bonus and dismissal practices, even going so far as to explain bonuses given to particular employees. "Results, or lack thereof, for which employees and executives are responsible and accountable, are factors when evaluating performance," wrote Mr. Shinseki, a former Army general.

Mr. Miller shot back on Friday: "It's becoming more apparent by the day that there seems to be just two types of people who think VA is properly holding its leaders accountable: VA executives who have received huge performance bonuses year after year despite failing in their jobs and those who work in VA's central office." Read the rest here.

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama announces a new vets hiring initiative - by construction companies - to be announced later today. Michelle Obama, also in the WSJ this morning: "On Monday, more than 100 construction companies-many of whom are direct competitors-are coming together to announce that they plan to hire more than 100,000 veterans within the next five years. They made this commitment not just because it's the patriotic thing to do, and not just because they want to repay our veterans for their service to our country, but because these companies know that it's the smart thing to do for their businesses.

As one construction industry executive put it, 'Veterans are invaluable to the construction industry. Men and women who serve in the military often have the traits that are so critical to our success: agility, discipline, integrity and the drive to get the job done right...'"

"Take the example of Glenn Tussing, who currently works at Disney. Glenn is an Air Force veteran who served as chief of future joint manpower requirements. In that role, he was responsible for figuring out the exact numbers and types of troops-from the pilots, to the engineers, to the medical personnel-needed for a mission to succeed. He would then locate those troops and help send them where they needed to go.

"When Disney was looking for someone to oversee the menus at Disney properties around the world, it would have been easy for them to overlook Glenn since the link between manpower planning and menu management isn't exactly intuitive. But Disney has trained its HR specialists to translate military experience into civilian qualifications. So when they were looking for someone who could determine the exact quantities and types of ingredients for every meal they served-and get that information anywhere in the world it needed to go-they knew Glenn was their guy. In fact, today at Disney, Glenn uses the same types of databases and programs he used in the military." More here.

And ICYMI, how the military could learn a few things from business leaders, part of the Denver Post's "American Homecomings" project here.

Welcome to Monday's edition of Situation Report. If you'd like to sign up to receive Situation Report, send us a note at gordon.lubold@foreignpolicy.com and we'll just stick you on. Like what you see? Please tell a friend.  And if you have a report you want teased, a piece of news, or a good tidbit, send it to us early for maximum tease, because if you see something, we hope you'll say something -- to Situation Report. And one more thing: please follow us @glubold.

Jim Bullion, head of the Pentagon's controversial Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, is out, Situation Report has learned. Bullion, who heads the "TFBSO" as it's known - the entity created in 2006 to drum up business in war zones, strengthen the economies there and create stability as a result, was just told his last day would be Wednesday.

A defense official confirmed to Situation Report that "Mr. Bullion and the Department had different visions for the task force's final year," and that "this leadership change, though early, is in the best interest of all concerned." Deputy Director Joe Catalino will serve as acting director. On Dec. 4, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced, to some surprise, that the task force would be phased out by the end of 2014 as part of a reorganization of the Pentagon's policy shop.

"We have every confidence that task force members remain up to the challenges before them and we are grateful for Mr. Bullion's service," Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Elissa Smith told Situation Report last night.

The task force has been controversial for some time and didn't have a lot of supporters at the Pentagon, State or USAID as it had shifted its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan in recent years and continued to play "matchmaker," linking the private sector to opportunities in war zones. Bullion succeeded Paul Brinkley, the larger-than-life businessman who started TFBSO and was controversial in his own right. Bullion, like any other agency manager, was likely not pleased that the Pentagon had discontinued the task force after 2014, when the bulk of U.S. forces are expected to be out of Afghanistan. Bullion had been pushing to have its life extended past 2014, but that was an unlikely proposition and was not met well within State and DoD. Although under Bullion the task force had pushed to bolster Afghanistan's carpet industry and made inroads in other areas of the Afghan economy, those pleas to keep the TFBSO going despite the writing on the wall may have been part of his undoing.

Meanwhile, Paul Brinkley has a new book and is having a party. Brinkley, who left the task force in 2011 amid controversies about the role of the task force, has a new book, "War Front to Store Front." It's out soon and he's having a party in Tysons Corner tonight to celebrate. Time's Fareed Zakaria, in the current edition of Time: "...Karzai might be playing an erratic game of brinkmanship in his negotiations with Washington, but he might also be trying to navigate a post-American Afghanistan. While U.S. troops might well remain and some American aid will continue, Afghanistan is going to look very different in 2015 than it does today. Consider these facts from a highly intelligent forthcoming book, War Front to Store Front, by Paul Brinkley: In 2009, Afghanistan had a nominal GDP of $10 billion. Of that number, 60% was foreign aid. The cultivation of poppy and the production and export of raw heroin--all of which is informal and underground--accounted for 30%. That leaves 10%, or $1 billion, of self-sustaining, legitimate economic activity. During the same year, the U.S. military spent $4 billion per month to protect a country with a real annual economic output of $1 billion."

Brinkley to Zakaria: "Kabul is a metaphor for the country... It is a city sized for 500,000 people. It has grown to 8 million, who have been drawn to the city by the massive influx of foreign money, military and nonmilitary. But that money is going to slow down very significantly soon. What happens then?" Read the rest here.

Speaking of all of this, USAID's Larry Sampler is talking Afghanistan at the New America Foundation today at around noon. Sampler, who heads AID's Afghanistan and Pakistan program, will be explaining how AID is pivoting from a war footing to "transition and transformation" and just how the agency plans to do that. A sample of Sampler, based on prepared remarks today: "...If you follow Afghanistan in the media, you are bombarded with negative stories of corruption, violence, bitterness, and lack of hope. The media - and even some in the US government - would have you believe that 12 years of sacrifice and investment in Afghanistan is being squandered and will soon be lost, as that country falls back into civil war and chaos. Or that USAID is shoveling money out the door to corrupt Afghans, as schools and hospitals crumble into money-pits unsuitable for human use.

"So my first message today is this: Don't believe it. I don't. And I have both the opportunity to know, and a responsibility to pay close attention. I am not naïve: I know that our track record has not been perfect, and that Afghanistan's future will not be easy, but we're not working in Afghanistan because we expect it to be easy. We're working in Afghanistan because it is important to our own national interests... I can't tell you how disappointed I am - and how demoralizing it is for our staff in the field - to have so many reports and stories come out that articulate quite well our own assessment of the frailties of particular ministries, but then completely ignore the significant work that goes into mitigating those frailties in the short-run and working with the Afghans to eliminate them over time." Event deets here.

ICYMI: AP's brief profiles of all 11 Afghanistan presidential candidates, here.

Chuck Hagel announced Friday that he would hire a senior officer to deal with the ethical issues rocking the Defense Department. Hagel, speaking more tautly and confidently than usual, to reporters at a last-minute briefing Friday: "Over the next few weeks, Chairman Dempsey and I will be announcing actions that all of our services are taking to deal with this problem.  I will assign to my senior staff a general officer who will report directly to me on issues related to military ethics, character, and leadership, and work directly with the service secretaries and the service chiefs.  This officer will coordinate the actions of our services on this issue, work every day with all of our services, and we will meet weekly so I can receive reports from DOD's senior leadership, including both officer and enlisted leadership, on the progress we're making."

Wait, is addressing ethics A priority, THE priority or what? Hagel, con't, during different parts of the briefing: "This will be an absolute top priority for the service secretaries, the service chiefs, General Dempsey, and me... And that's why I am putting this as a number-one priority for this institution... I said a number-one priority.  A high priority, I think is what I said... We have a lot of priorities."

Dempsey has already assigned Marine Lt. Gen. Tom Waldhauser to lead his "profession of arms" initiative to work to re-instill the professional aspects of military service and leadership across the military, but Hagel's effort will be a separate and yet coordinated effort with what Dempsey is already doing. BTW, read our piece from last year about Dempsey's plan to address ethical conduct - in April 2013, here.

Also: Hagel announced that Air Force up-and-comer Paul Selva, now the four-star who runs Air Mobility Command, will be nom'ed as the new commander of U.S. Transportation Command. Hagel: "If confirmed, he will be an outstanding successor to General Fraser, who's been an exemplary, effective TRANSCOM commander, and we will miss him, and we appreciate his tremendous service to this country."

Read the full transcript of Hagel's remarks Friday here.

Ouch! The Marine Corps is seeking to "professionalize" the newsstand at the PX and is relegating Marine Corps Times from its prominent location near the checkout lines to an area in the PXes with all the other pubs. MCT's Lance Bacon: "Marine Corps leaders have ordered the independent Marine Corps Times newspaper removed from its prominent newsstand location at base exchange stores worldwide and placed instead in areas away from checkout lines, where it is harder to find and fewer copies are available. The move raises troubling questions about motive and closely follows a directive prohibiting commanders from using budget funds to buy Marine Corps Times and a number of other publications.

Marine Corps Times is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage of the Corps, focusing on everything from career tracks, to pay and benefits, family and spouse issues, and employment after leaving the military. Throughout much of the past year, the paper has published dozens of articles as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations the service's commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, abused his authority to ensure Marines were punished for an embarrassing war-zone scandal. Numerous reports have captured the attention of mainstream media outlets, including NPR, CNN and Time magazine, among several others.

"Spokesmen for the commandant's office would not answer questions about whether Amos or his staff were aware of or involved in the decision to relocate the newspaper, but a source with knowledge of the new directive said it was approved with the commandant's knowledge." More here.

Senior Officer Ethics: How does it sniff? On Friday, the WaPo's Craig Whitlock wrote that there was another, new problem with some admirals taking a trip to the U.K. and if it passed 'The Washington Post Test." Whitlock: "Amid a flurry of ethical scandals vexing the military comes a new transgression: The Navy has rebuked three admirals for taking a questionable trip to Britain and thereby flunking what was termed 'The Washington Post Test.' Unlike other cases of personal misconduct that have been dogging U.S. military leaders in recent years, this episode hardly amounted to a high crime. The admirals went on an official, seven-day trip to Britain in April 2012 that, to some eyes, seemed more about pleasure and less about business. A whistleblower reported the trip to the Naval Inspector General, alleging that the three commanders were longtime pals, that they took along their wives and that it was perceived as 'no more than a taxpayer financed vacation to London, England for six close friends to celebrate.'

"At the time, two of the Navy officers had just been selected for promotion to one-star admiral. The anonymous whistleblower acknowledged that many aspects of the trip might be 'technically legal' but asked Navy investigators whether it would "stand up to ‘The Washington Post Test.'?" In other words, what if The Post found out about it - would it provide embarrassing material for a news story?" More here.

Meanwhile, are the military's senior leadership problems reminiscent of "frat boy antics?" The WaPo's Amanda Bennett (wife of former WaPo owner Don Graham, who still owns Foreign Policy), writing in the WaPo: "...On one level, it's not surprising that these [senior officers] thought they could have it all. For the most part, they could. They could be powerful, respected, well paid, influential - and never had to outgrow their frat-boy behavior. There was never any real blowback. Even as public displays of bias or crudeness became unacceptable, these men figured out how to show two faces. Many learned that it paid to mouth platitudes about "zero tolerance" and "equal opportunity" but that there was no real incentive to walk the walk. After all, they could check off the human resources training, give the 'respect for all' speech and still tell crude jokes - or worse - on the golf course. But little by little, we are seeing that, as we might tell 5-year-olds, choices have consequences.

"...Now the consequences are becoming personal. The realization that this type of nonsense might actually harm one's career will help speed the shift in behavior in ways that mere concerns about fairness, or even national security, did not." Read the rest of her piece here.