National Security

FP's Situation Report: Karzai’s brother backs out of Afghan presidential race

By Dan Lamothe

Hamid Karzai's brother doesn't want to be the Afghan president. That from the Wall Street Journal's Nathan Hodge, reporting out of Kabul. From his story: "The brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai Thursday effectively bowed out of the country's presidential race and endorsed one of his rivals, shaking up the country's election campaign a month before the historic vote. Qayum Karzai, the elder brother of the current president, announced in a news conference in Kabul that he would back the candidacy of former Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul. The move creates a powerful new bloc appealing to ethnic Pashtun voters, the country's largest community. Afghanistan is slated to choose its new president April 5, in an election that is bitterly opposed by the Taliban-and that, if successful, would mark the first democratic transition of power in the nation's history. President Karzai is not allowed by the constitution to run again." More here.

An airstrike kills five Afghan soldiers in eastern Afghanistan. The International Security Assistance Force that overseas NATO operations from Kabul confirmed the mistake, saying it would investigate. Afghan officials suggest it may have been a drone operation gone awry, but it isn't clear. From the New York Times' Rod Nordland: "An American airstrike killed five Afghan National Army soldiers and wounded eight more Thursday morning, according to Afghan and American officials. The attack took place at 3:20 a.m. in the Charkh district of Logar Province, and local officials attributed it to a drone strike. ‘We believe the strike was the result of poor coordination between the people on the ground and the operators of the drone,' said Din Mohammad Darwish, a spokesman for the governor of Logar Province, which is in eastern Afghanistan, neighboring Kabul Province. ‘The area is frequented by insurgents both foreign and local, and drone strikes are carried out quite often in that part of Charkh,' Mr. Darwish said. ‘The A.N.A. outpost was part of the security belt in the province.' More here.

A new investigative report zeroes in on the Pentagon's refusal to use DNA to identify fallen U.S. troops who were left overseas. Megan McCloskey of ProPublica rolls out a heartbreaking story this morning stretching more than 4,500 words about the U.S. military's relative failure to bring home the remains of tens of thousands of troops who went missing during past conflicts. From her piece: "The Pentagon spends about $100 million a year to find men like Bud, following the ethos of ‘leave no man behind.' Yet it solves surprisingly few cases, hobbled by overlapping bureaucracy and a stubborn refusal to seize the full potential of modern forensic science. Last year, the military identified just 60 service members out of the about 83,000 Americans missing from World War II, Korea and Vietnam, around 45,000 of whom are considered recoverable. At the center of the military's effort is a little-known agency, the Joint Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command, or J-PAC, and its longtime scientific director, Tom Holland. He alone assesses whether the evidence J-PAC has assembled is sufficient to identify a set of remains: A body goes home only if he signs off."

More from the piece: "Over Holland's 19-year tenure, J-PAC has stuck with an outdated approach that relies primarily on historical and medical records even as others in the field have turned to DNA to quickly and reliably make identifications. Though finding missing service members can be difficult - some were lost deep in Europe's forests, others in Southeast Asia's jungles - Holland's approach has stymied efforts to identify MIAs even when the military already knows where they are. More than 9,400 service members are buried as ‘unknowns' in American cemeteries around the world. Holland's lab has rejected roughly nine out of every 10 requests to exhume such graves.

Holland's cautious approach is animated by a fear of mistakes, ProPublica reports. More from the story: "Our credibility is only as good as our last misidentification," he said in an interview. "It doesn't matter that I've identified 500 people correctly. If I misidentify one, that's what going to be the focus. That's what's going to be on the news. That is what is going to erode the credibility. That's what I go home with every night." The story was co-reported with NPR and will be featured on its popular "All Things Considered" program, McCloskey tells Situation Report. Read the rest here.

Welcome to Thursday's edition of Situation Report. I'm Dan Lamothe, and I'm filling in for Gordon Lubold for the remainder of the week. If you'd like to sign up to receive Situation Report, send him a note at and he'll stick you on. And if you like what you see, tell a friend.  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 somethingwe hope you'll say something -- to Situation Report. One more thing: please follow me at @DanLamothe and Gordon at @glubold for delightful wit and national security analysis. You can also always reach me at Thank you kindly.

Chuck Hagel took a beating on Capitol Hill yesterday... but it wasn't just about the crisis in Ukraine. The Pentagon's proposed fiscal 2015 budget came under fire in the Senate as China announced it will boost its defense spending another 12.2 percent, to 131.6 billion, reinforcing it as the world's section largest military. From a Foreign Policy story penned by me and Yochi Dreazen: "The plan was controversial from the start, with many lawmakers griping that the budget would result in a military that was too small, and too poorly equipped, to tamp down potential conflicts around the world or deal with an increasingly assertive Russia. China's announcement Wednesday that it would be boosting its military budget by 12.2 percent in 2014, to $131.6 billion, simply fanned the flames.  ‘I must say your timing is exquisite,' Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain told Hagel during a heated Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. ‘Coming over here with a budget when the world is probably more unsettled since the end of World War II. The invasion of Crimea, Iran negotiations collapsed, China more aggressive in the South China Sea, North Korea fired more missiles in the last few days, Syria turning into a regional conflict.'

But the Pentagon's new strategy document, the Quadrennial Defense Review, takes a more measured tone against China. More from our FP story: "Like its predecessor, the new QDR raises questions about Chinese ambition, but it frames it in part on how it could feed regional risks in the Pacific as it increasingly becomes an international business hub. ‘As nations in the region continue to develop their military and security capabilities, there is greater risk that tensions over long-standing sovereignty disputes or claims to natural resources will spur disruptive competition or erupt into conflict, reversing the trends of rising regional peace, stability, and prosperity,' the new QDR said. ‘In particular, the rapid pace and comprehensive scope of China's military modernization continues, combined with a relative lack of transparency and openness from China's leaders regarding both military capabilities and intentions." The Pentagon's response, then, is to "manage the competitive aspects of the relationship in ways that improve regional peace and stability consistent with international norms and principles.'"

Oh, those pricy dead defense programs. National Journal's Sara Sorcher drills down on the Pentagon's unfortunate habit of spending billions of dollars on programs, only to kill them later. Examples include the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, and the Air Force's Airborne Laser. From her story: "That's just a smattering. Other unfinished programs spiked by the Obama administration include the now-aborted VH-71 presidential helicopter, the Transformational Satellite Communications System, the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, the CG(X) Cruiser, the Joint Tactical Radio System Ground Mobile Radios, and the Medium Extended Air Defense System. That list alone totals more than $50 billion, and there are undoubtedly others tucked within the Pentagon's labyrinthine budget. Regardless of the exact tally, the wasted funding does not necessarily mean it's a mistake to kill the programs. Doing so can save big money in the long term. If the military believes it would be better served by a different option - or if the money is needed for a more crucial program - then continuing to invest in these expensive programs would have been throwing good money after bad." More here.

The Marine Corps will soon have its second living recipient of the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine Corps Times' Hope Hodge Seck broke the story yesterday, reporting that medically retired Cpl. William Kyle Carpenter will receive the nation's highest valor award soon for covering a grenade on a rooftop in Afghanistan in November 2010 in an attempt to shield a fellow infantryman from the blast. From her story: "Carpenter, a 24-year-old medically retired corporal, will become the service's third Medal of Honor recipient from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which date back to October 2001. The Marine Corps is finalizing plans with the White House for a ceremony in Washington, officials said. Marine Corps Times began making inquiries about the status of Carpenter's case because the statute of limitations for Department of Navy Medal of Honor awards requires that a formal recommendation be made within three years of the combat action in question. Carpenter, the subject of two cover stories published by Marine Corps Times in 2012, also recently appeared in the national media. He was the subject of a January feature story in Reader's Digest and a related appearance Jan. 27 on Katie Couric's syndicated talk show."

The news was widely cheered by Marines, and for good reason. Carpenter, now a student at the University of South Carolina, is seen as humble and reflective about the experience, which cost him an eye and led to more than 30 surgeries to put his body back together. Your Situation Report correspondent got to know him while reporting a long-form profile on him for Marine Corps Times published in 2012, and found him surprisingly open about the whole thing, considering the horrific trauma sustained. Photographs of his scarred face have circulated in patriotic chain emails for years, and Carpenter's family launched a Facebook page, Operation Kyle, providing updates on his recuperation. Read his profile piece and watch a video of him recalling the attack here. Oh - you can also find Carpenter on Twitter at @chiksdigscars, perhaps one of the greatest handles of all time.

But what about Peralta? The office of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) released a statement to Situation Report praising Carpenter, but taking the Pentagon to task again for choosing not to award a Medal of Honor to a fallen Marine credited by the Navy Department with covering a grenade to shield fellow Marines from a grenade blast in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Feb. 21 that he would not reopen Peralta's case, citing inclusive evidence. A separate Washington Post story published the same raised questions about whether witnesses concocted the tale that Peralta covered the grenade to honor their fallen comrade, but numerous Marines who were there that day have pushed back against that strongly.

From Joe Kasper, Hunter's spokesman: "Kyle Carpenter deserves the MoH -- no doubt about it.  If the Marine Corps made the recommendation, based on its own high standards, then that's all Representative Hunter needs to know. Carpenter is a true inspiration and a worthy recipient of the highest award for combat valor. Though it's hard in this case not to draw comparisons to Sgt. Rafael Peralta and what's clearly a double-standard among the upper levels of the Defense Department.  Secretary Hagel repeatedly referred to the ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt MoH award standard,' in justifying his decision on Peralta, but given the issues with the witnesses in that case, the responsible thing to do is refocus attention on the evidence itself, which weighs heavily in Peralta's favor. In fact, a fragment of the grenade fuse was recovered from Peralta's body armor, with other damage visible. The Secretary's response was that the condition of the armor is consistent with a grenade detonating some distance to Peralta's left.  So in other words, the grenade detonated and the fuse traveled under the floor and somehow, through a miracle, lodged in Peralta's armor. Go figure."

Henry Kissinger weighs in on Ukraine. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, the famous former U.S. secretary of state focused on the nuances of the messy situation with Russia, and called for understanding. He led the State Department from 1973 to 1977, during the height of the Cold War. From his piece: "Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side's outpost against the other - it should function as a bridge between them." More here.

Obama wants to use natural gas as a weapon against Putin. Coral Davenport and Steven Erlanger of the New York Times report that the White House plans to large quantities of the vast new natural gas supplies in the United States to Europe to undercut the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. From the story: "The crisis has escalated a State Department initiative to use a new boom in American natural gas supplies as a lever against Russia, which supplies 60 percent of Ukraine's natural gas and has a history of cutting off the supply during conflicts. This week, Gazprom, Russia's state-run natural gas company, said it would no longer provide gas at a discount rate to Ukraine, a move reminiscent of more serious Russian cutoffs of natural gas to Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe in 2006, 2008 and 2009. The administration's strategy is to move aggressively to deploy the advantages of its new resources to undercut Russian natural gas sales to Ukraine and Europe, weakening such moves by Mr. Putin in future years. Although Russia is still the world's biggest exporter of natural gas, the United States recently surpassed it to become the world's largest natural gas producer, largely because of breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, known as fracking." More here.

Two days ago, Foreign Policy's Keith Johnson posited in a story that Putin wasn't likely to use energy as a weapon against Europe in the Ukraine crisis, in part because Russia also stood to lose a lot. From his story: "Fundamentally, energy trade between Russia and Europe is a two-way street. As much as European policymakers fret about dependence on Russian gas, Gazprom frets about dependence on the European market, which accounts for fully three-quarters of its export sales. More broadly, Moscow relies on oil and gas exports for one half of its federal budget. That makes a prolonged shut off of gas exports to Ukraine and the rest of Europe a dangerous proposition for Russian President Vladimir Putin." More here.

National Security

FP’s Situation Report: Congress investigating U.S. intel mistakes in Crimea

SECDEF begins defending his budget; The combat rescue helo lives; and a bit more.

By Dan Lamothe

Vladimir Putin just upped the ante in his war of words with the United States. The Russian leader conducted an hour-long news conference on Tuesday, saying he saw no reason for his forces to intervene in Ukraine, but leaving open the possibility of military action if Russian-speaking Ukrainians are endangered. From the New York Times' Steven Lee Myers, Ellen Barry and Alan Cowell, in a story datelined from Moscow: "Mr. Putin seemed eager to explain his motives in Ukraine. But he offered little about the strategic vision behind Russia's actions, and gave no sense of immediate steps that could be taken to resolve the crisis. He also insisted that he did not want a military conflict in Ukraine. ‘I want you to understand me clearly,' he said. ‘If we make such a decision, it will only be for the protection of Ukrainian citizens.'"

The United States is interfering in Ukraine like... what? More from the Times on Putin: "He flatly denied that Russian troops had occupied Crimea and said the United States government had interfered in Ukraine ‘from across the pond in America as if they were sitting in a laboratory and running experiments on rats, without any understanding of the consequences.' Mr. Putin delivered a version of the crisis almost entirely at odds with the view held by most officials in Europe and the United States, as well as by many Ukrainians. He described anti-government protests in Kiev as an ‘orgy' of radicals and nationalists, noting a swastika armband that he had glimpsed in images of the crowd. He also insisted that ousted President Viktor F. Yanukovych had never ordered security forces to shoot protesters, suggesting that snipers stationed on rooftops ‘may have been provocateurs from opposition parties.'" More here.

Meanwhile, Congress wants to know how U.S. intelligence sources got it wrong on Russia's intentions for Crimea. The Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman reports that there is a split between how Pentagon intelligence sources and the CIA saw Russia's military movements ahead of its occupation of Crimea. From her story: "House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) said in an interview Tuesday that his committee has begun a review to find out why intelligence analysts misread Russian President Vladimir Putin's intentions. "We've started looking at what was missed in some of the [Russian] intentions piece," he said. He said the source of the problem appears to be more of an analytical issue than any inability by intelligence agencies to collect enough information on Russian plans."

The CIA is sticking to its guns. More from Gorman: "The CIA said its guidance has included assessments of possible Russian action. ‘Since the beginning of the political unrest in Ukraine, the CIA has regularly updated policymakers to ensure they have an accurate and timely picture of the unfolding crisis,' said CIA spokesman Chris White. ‘These updates have included warnings of possible scenarios for a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.' More here.

Meanwhile, in Crimea... The Ukrainians are worried the Russians are trying to bait them into a fight. From Askold Krushelnycky, writing for Foreign Policy from the peninsula: "Try to imagine the dilemma that faces Ihor, a Ukrainian naval officer from a base in Crimea that's now surrounded by the Russian troops that are tightening their grip on the peninsula. (I've changed his identity because of the obvious risks to his personal safety.) ‘I'm afraid that the Russians are now waiting to see how we'll react,' he told me. ‘Whatever we do is high risk. If we fight back against them, chances are that Russian ethnic civilians will be killed or wounded, and Putin will use that as an excuse to push into southern and eastern Ukraine. But if we do nothing, they'll take that as a sign of weakness and think they can do whatever they want without any opposition from us -- which they'll soon find is not the case at all.' More here.

Why Crimea could make Afghanistan complicated. Even with all the hand-wringing over Russia's recent moves, some officials in the Pentagon are quietly calling for restraint, noting Putin's control over a key road out of Afghanistan. From the Christian Science Monitor's Anna Mulrine: "While calls mount on Capitol Hill to robustly punish Russia for its incursion into Crimea, some officials in the back halls of the Pentagon are privately pushing for restraint. That's because senior U.S. military officials are well aware that a key supply line in and out of Afghanistan runs through Russia. That supply line, known as the Northern Distribution Network, or NDN, brings food, water, and building materials that keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan fed and America's longest war going. Negotiating the NDN was a labor-intensive endeavor, and the Pentagon does not want to lose it, particularly as the spring fighting season in Afghanistan is set to begin soon. ‘It's been a heck of a process and of course we're always looking out for any disruptions to it," says a senior defense official. ‘Political problems with Russia is certainly one of them.'" More here.

Welcome to Wednesday's edition of Situation Report. I'm Dan Lamothe, and I'm filling in for Gordon Lubold after sitting through several hours of budget briefings at the Pentagon on Tuesday. If you'd like to sign up to receive Situation Report, send him a note at and he'll stick you on. And if you like what you see, tell a friend.  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 somethingwe hope you'll say something -- to Situation Report. One more thing: please follow me at @DanLamothe and Gordon at @glubold for delightful wit and national security analysis. You can also always reach me at Much obliged.

Speaking of the budget, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel begins defending his during a 9:30 a.m. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill today. And the rollout of the Defense Department's 2015 fiscal plan yesterday made it clear the Pentagon is choosing machinery over manpower. From my story for FP: "The Army is cutting thousands of soldiers from its force while fielding new vehicles to replace the Humvee and upgrading tanks and helicopters. The Air Force is shedding thousands of airmen as it buys new, stealthy F-35 fighter jets and plans for its next-generation long-range bomber. And the Marine Corps is shrinking by thousands of personnel as it prepares to buy not only more F-35s, but a next-generation heavy lift helicopter and an amphibious vehicle that will swim from Navy ships to shore carrying combat troops. It's the new normal for the U.S. military, in which machinery trumps manpower when preparing budgets. With belt-tightening across Washington, the Pentagon wants to cut manpower and benefits for personnel along with select acquisition programs in order to retain as much as they can in new weapons, planes, and vehicles, senior defense officials said Tuesday. The comments came as they unveiled the Defense Department's new, controversial $495.6 billion base budget for fiscal 2015."

The budget was rolled out along with the Quadrennial Defense Review plan, which lays out the Pentagon's strategy for the future. And already, it's taking shots from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel prepares for budget testimony before Congress this week. More from my story: "Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Cal.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, decried the effort on Tuesday, saying President Obama's decision to cut the defense budget at a time when Russia and China are expanding their militaries is problematic, even if Congress called for mandatory budget cuts to drive down the national debt. ‘In an effort to control debt, the only spending the President has truly agreed to cut has been those funds dedicated to national security: $1.2 trillion in defense cuts during his time in office,' McKeon said. ‘While we cut nearly one fifth of our defense resources, Russia and China are arming at an alarming rate -- Russia's military spending is up roughly 30 percent and China's has more than doubled in recent years.'" Read the rest here.

Expect Hagel to get an earful about more than just that, however. The Pentagon has an additional $26 billion "wish list" in which it would like to buy additional aircraft and hardware in fiscal 2015. It is part of the Obama administration's "Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative," a separate funding mechanism that also is under fire on Capitol Hill. From Defense News' John T. Bennett: "Fiscal hawks in both chambers are zeroing in on the $58 billion government-wide wish list, including the DoD's $26 billion chunk of it. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., fired a shot across the White House's bow, criticizing Obama's wish list and signaling the Pentagon won't get everything - or maybe anything - on its list. ‘It is important to remember that it is the Congress, not the White House, that holds the ‘power of the purse' and will decide where to cut, where to sustain, and where to invest tax dollars to the most benefit of the American people," Rogers said. More here.

Meanwhile, the China military is expanding its budget... again. The New York Times reports today that China will bump its military budget up by 12.2 percent. That, on top of 10.7 percent jump in 2013. From Edward Wong's story: "Dennis J. Blasko, a former military attaché at the American Embassy in Beijing and a retired Army officer, said the 2014 Chinese military budget ‘won't break the bank, but it says to the troops, ‘Thank you for your service, you are important to us, we support you ... A significant portion likely will be used for more pay raises... You may recall hearing some talk about how P.L.A. officers should be paid more than civil servants.'" More here.

Surprise! The Air Force's combat rescue helicopter program is back from the dead. The biggest curveball of the day for reporters and defense officials at the Pentagon appeared to be the Air Force's late-breaking announcement that it will award a contract for its next-generation combat rescue helicopter, despite it not being included in the budget. Many had left the program for dead, and criticized the Air Force for killing it. Halfway through the Air Force's budget briefing, however, Maj. Gen. James Martin told reporters he'd just received word the program would continue, after all. Air Force Secretary Deborah James, in a news release the service posted Tuesday: "Over the last 10 years, the Air Force has discussed upgrading the platform that performs this sacred mission for all DOD personnel who go into harm's way. This mission is part of the military ethos, and the Air Force is committed to keeping it." More here.

The helo decision is a big win for Sikorsky. From Defense News' Aaron Mehta: "Sikorsky's price bid was expected to expire at the end of March, but a company official said the service has asked the firm to extend and update its pricing through the end of June, with the expectation that a contract will be awarded in that time period. ‘Sikorsky and our teammate Lockheed Martin thank the U. S. Air Force for enabling us to build a modern and affordable combat rescue helicopter that will replace the service's rapidly aging HH-60G Pave Hawk fleet,' a Sikorsky spokesman said in a statement. ‘We are honored to be part of the sacred mission of leaving no combatant of the U.S. armed forces or its allies behind on the battlefield.' More here.

Duncan Hunter analyzes the defense budget. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.), a member of the HASC and reserve Marine officer, penned an opinion piece on the Pentagon spending for Defense One. A key point from it: "Those who think America spends too much for national defense are mistaken, just as those who think that larger defense budget numbers translate into strong security. In attempting to strike a balance in recognition of today's fiscal realities, the Department of Defense unveiled its fiscal year 2015 budget proposal on Tuesday, consisting of both high and low points. Ultimately, it's the duty of Congress, empowered by the Constitution, to create the defense budget, but the Pentagon's blueprint does offer some guidance that Congress would be wrong to overlook."

More from Hunter: "One recommendation worth consideration is the reduction in littoral combat ship purchases, from 52 ships to 32 ships. A cutback in the LCS would in fact produce considerable cost savings. But the significance of procuring 20 fewer ships signals a potential change in prioritization, whereby attention can be directed to alternate assets that are capable of operating more regularly in all regions. Building the naval fleet around LCS has never made any sense and cutting the LCS inventory by 20 ships will prevent overreliance on a shallow-water vessel. There are other upsides, including some outside-the-box thinking on the Navy's cruiser fleet, added investments in cyber security and a modest but needed increase in special operations forces. All of these decisions and more are sure to be discussed in the coming weeks and months as Congress moves ahead with its work.  While there are many aspects of the defense budget proposal that have been rightly declared dead on arrival, it will be important to separate the good from the bad and establish a defense budget that is singularly focused on protecting America's security interests within the confines of a new budget environment." Read the rest here.

What's up with all the pilot selfies? Politico's Phil Ewing (@philewing) tipped me off to a photo of a pilot with the Royal Danish Air Force taking a "selfie" photograph while launching a missile in an F-16. The Aviationist blog says selfies are somewhat common among fighter pilots these days, but this one is a bit extra special due to the air-to-air missile roaring in the background, over the pilot's right shoulder. Check it out here.