Virtual Army Experience

I wrote a story for the Washington Times this week on the Virtual Army Experience, the Army's new tool to shape public conceptions of the Army. The 19,500 square foot arena is designed to give players a real feel for the combat situations that our military experiences every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told - nothing can emulate real combat in my opinion, but the simulator harps on the more glorified aspects of being a soldier. If you want to read more about it, take a look at the article.

The highlight of my day was meeting Sergeant Jason Mike, a silver star recipient for his service in Iraq. Sgt Mike is a part of the Army's "Real Heros" program which is designed to put a heroic face to the Army.

Sargeant Mike is truly a hero.

When his convoy was on a patrol mission to clear supply routes of hostile targets and IED's, Sgt Mike's three hummer convoy was ambushed. Sgt Mike, a combat medic, proceeded to encounter the threat head on, fending off over over 50 insurgents while treating three injured soldiers. At one point Sgt Mike faced the enemy alone, wielding two weapons, an m249 light machine gun and an m4 assault rifle. Because of his heroism, Sgt Mike's convoy escaped the ambush with no casualties.

This man could not be more awesome. He even has his own action figure, which true to the story, has him wielding two weapons. Just as an aside, I was let down that the action figure was made in China.

His full story is here



The VAE was being showcased during a Joint Forces open house at Andrew's AFB. The tarmac was covered by aircraft from each o the services. I snapped a few photos, so here they are for
your enjoyment.















The B17 Memphis Belle. Probably the most famous bomber from WWII.















The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. RIP






Sikorsky HH-53 "Super Jolly Green Giant"















The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon

America's Strategic Posture

In the past several weeks, two key reports came out that analyzed the strategic posture and nuclear weapons policy of the United States. The one put out by the Strategic Posture Commission that was chaired by William Perry and James Schlesinger and included panel members Keith Payne and James Woolsey can be found here. The Council on Foreign Relations published a report on the U.S. nuclear weapons policy, which was chaired by William Perry and Brent Scowcroft, can be found here.
While the reports carry key differences, it is remarkable the amount of congruence between them. Some of the major similarities concerning the role of nuclear weapons include:

• Nukes assure U.S. allies through extended deterrence
• Geopolitical conditions for a "world without nuclear weapons" do not currently exist
• Nuclear hedging is an appropriate strategy in an uncertain world
• Ambiguity has been, and continues to be, good for U.S. deterrence
• Importance of assurance/consultation with allies before changes in nuclear posture
• Nuclear terrorism is more likely to take place than deliberate use by a state

There are also major similarities concerning modernization and arms control:

• Article VI of the NPT calls for "nuclear as well as general" disarmament
• Modernization of nuclear warheads can take place simultaneously with reductions
• Both reports recognize that all other P5 states are modernizing their arsenals
• The nuclear infrastructure and human expertise is decaying through lack of funds and a shortage of people entering the career field
• Support for the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and strengthening of the NPT

I encourage you to read the reports (at least their "findings" and "recommendations" sections) in order to reach your own conclusions and see what the experts are saying. The reports were divided on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which could be coming before the Senate in the next year. Also, the NPT Review Conference is set to take place in 2010 (with a preparatory session this month), so this debate is only going to get more important in the very near future.

In Defense of Defense

In order to win the debate over funding, the pentagon must urge the president to reevaluate his duties to the state and prioritize these responsibilities, reflecting their importance in our annual budget. There are rich historical and philosophical traditions which influenced the debate and ratification of our constitution. It serves as the highest authority in the United States, and should serve as a compass in defining our government’s responsibilities as a state. The preamble gives the clearest inventory of the federal governments responsibilities.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Each of these responsibilities is contingent upon the ability of the federal government to defend itself from internal and external threats. We would not be able to guarantee the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our children should we be overcome by a foreign adversary. This includes the defense of our border, as well as the free flow of energy and assets abroad.


As one of the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, the United States must be willing to reevaluate its spending habits. Though many take issue with the amount of money we spend on the GWOT, its budget is eclipsed by non enumerated responsibilities including social security, federal education, and housing and urban planning. If we are serious about our constitution, our congress needs to reevaluate and ultimately increase funding provided for the defense of the United States as our combatant commanders, not politicians see fit.

On a very basic level, I believe Secretary Gates has a firm grasp on the needs of the United States defense community and tackles the problems in a fiscally responsible manner. His beliefs in a strong balanced approach are consistent with the four goals of the defense community, to dissuade, deter, defend against our enemies and assure our allies. Though in my assessment his views are not perfect,though the thrust of his argument is certainly commendable.

The difficulty is that Gates must face is cabinet level peers are not playing the same game, and are vying for funding in a zero sum game. If Gates does not battle for his rightful share of the pie, the defense of our homeland may become marginalized in its funding because of Washington politics.

Deep Thoughts (By Jack Handey)

Just a random one I thought I should share:

"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have."

Sergey Kislyak

As a part of the William Van Cleave guest lecture series, DSS was graced with the presence of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak on Thursday April 30^th. The ambassador addressed a crowded room, comprised of a healthy mix of students, academics and politicians. The event, graciously coordinated by faculty member Robert Joseph, was the most well attended of the lecture series this academic year. Hats off to the faculty for such a well produced event.

Kislyak addressed a variety of topics, ranging from strategic arms agreements to the recent success of Russian players in the Nation Hockey League. Though his lecture was quite informative as well as persuasive, I came away certain of one thing - Kislyak has an enormous amount of pride for his motherland. His enthusiasm was not tempered either; the ambassador spoke of Russia much like I would boast of America.

Ambassador Kislyak’s lecture highlighted several opportunities for cooperation between the United States and Russia, but he was most contentious over the 2008 South Ossetia War. The ambassador made clear his disapproval of United States’ unsympathetic reaction, bemoaning Russia’s victim status in the conflict. His arguments were framed quite convincingly, but failed encompass the entire portrait. Kislyak used the same tactics throughout his lecture to understate the misdeeds of the Russian Federation, while exaggerating those of other nations.

Ambassador Kislyak demonstrates the breadth of his sympathy for the Georgians.

The event culminated in a Q&A session, in which the ambassador surprisingly fielded unfiltered questions from the audience. This is where the ambassador truly earned his stripes as a diplomat. Kislyak confronted issues of the INF, Iran’s nuclear program, and the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes in an impressive fashion, while accomplishing the seemingly impossible task of placing Russia in a positive light in each case.

The evening concluded with a reception, which gave the audience the opportunity to interact with Ambassador Kislyak on a more casual basis. I left the lecture impressed with what a good sport the ambassador seemed to be.

Students of strategy should be taking notes from the ambassador, who’s skills as a diplomat were on par with our own Dr. Joseph. This leads me to believe that though the geopolitical prestige of the Russian Federation has dropped over the years, they certainly do not suffer from a lack of diplomatic talent.