Today, the Pentagon released a video showing an Apache carefully contemplating an air strike against suspected fighters in Afghanistan. On one hand, this is reassuring. After the May 4 bombing in Farah, in which the military acknowledges as many as 86 civilians may have been killed, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new commander in Afghanistan, wants to signal to everyone that he and his commanders are committed to using their air power judiciously.

But how Pentagon officials decide when to release videos is problematic. When video serves the message they want to project – in this case that the military takes great care before contemplating an attack from the air – they make the video available. When the video captures troubling images, suddenly it is an operational security issue.

Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Central Command commander, had promised that we would see video of the Farah incident. But officials told McClatchy that is showed suspected fighters running into a home and the U.S. striking that building without checking whether civilians were inside. On Friday evening, the Pentagon released an unclassified executive summary of its investigation. The promised video, officials announced, would no longer be available.

Alas, here is a video of how the Pentagon thinks these attacks should look when they are carried out correctly.

I feared it the minute we heard the news that a Metro rail train crashed on the Red Line on Monday evening. We saw the grainy images on the television screen of the crushed train on the line near, and I wondered: Were there any soldiers, Marines, airman or sailors on board? After all, the train was coming from the direction of Walter Reed hospital, and most days it is impossible to ride Metro without seeing someone in uniform.

As it turned out, there were at least two servicemen. One was Chaplain David Bottoms who serves at Walter Reed who reached out to the injured immediately after the crash and offered prayer. The other was Maj. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr., 62, the former commander of D.C. Army and Air National Guard. He and his wife were among the nine killed.

On 9/11, Wherley commanded the 113th Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, and on that ordered he scrambled to get jets over the nation’s capital to protect it from further attacks. According to a 2002 interview he gave the Washington Post, his is “first inkling that the attacks would go beyond New York was when one of his officers, whose husband worked at the Pentagon, saw on television that the building had been hit and began shrieking.”

He retired in June 2008 as commander of the D.C.'s National Guard.

His story doesn’t fit directly into the kind of reporting we do at N&S but I wanted this with you, dear readers, as I know many of who would want to know more about him.

Well, we now know what happened in Farah province. On Friday evening, the Pentagon released an unclassified version of its executive summary about the May 4 incident.  The report is damning, in that spells out how the military violated its own rules of engagement and that those violations may have led to as many as 86 civilians killed. But today, there were some signs that the Farah incident is also leading to change. We heard out of Kabul today that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander there, has ordered his forces to apply more stringent rules to their use of air power when chasing Taliban forces hiding amongst Afghan civilians.

He called on U.S. forces to limit its use of air power to instances when U.S. troops could be overrun in an effort to limit civilian casualties. According to this report, McChrystal told his forces, “When we shoot into a compound,  that should only be for the protection of our forces. …I want everyone to understand that.”

The change is the military’s acknowledgment that killing civilians ultimately may lead ot more fighters, not less, no matter how many Taliban are killed in an airstrike. But using less air power could come at a cost. The United States has come to depend on air power, in part, because it doesn’t have enough ground forces. Moving forward, I wonder if a more stringent use of air power mean that the commander will eventually have to ask for more ground troops.

Today at the Pentagon, I spent the day asking the following question: Are you or aren’t you? As in, is the military going to release an unclassified version of a report that examines how the U.S. forces in Afghanistan killed roughly 50 Afghans during a May offensive against the Taliban? The attack in western Farah province has become a national issue in Afghanistan, an indictment on U.S. tactics when it confronts Taliban fighting and hiding amongst Afghan villagers. For weeks now, the Pentagon has promised to release its findings, but to no avail.

Yesterday, we wrote about the debate within the administration about releasing the findings. And today Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell met with reporters and danced around the question. Afterward, my colleagues looked at each other, completely befuddled as we still didn’t know what the status of the release of the report is. Here is the latest story on its possible release.

Dear readers: Sometimes our job here at N&S is to dispel rumors, and today is such a day. There is one going around that President Obama – who spoke at the Naval Academy’s graduation ceremony on May 22nd – ordered USNA graduating cadets not to wear their dress swords out of security concerns. The suggestion is that the president is both a wimp, unpatriotic and has no appreciation for the nuances of military history. Indeed, some are dubbing it the “swordless graduation.”

As it turns out, the rumor is not true. A Navy spokesperson tells us cadets have never worn their swords at graduation. Here is the full statement:

Sir/Ma'am,
 
There is unfortunately a considerable amount of misunderstanding and in
some cases a lack of context regarding prescribed uniforms, ceremonial
swords and associated security measures in conjunction with the recent
May 22nd U.S. Naval Academy graduation and commissioning.
 
Midshipmen and officers did not wear ceremonial swords at graduation
because of long established uniform protocol, not due to security
concerns as some observers have inferred.  In fact, the prescribed
uniform for officers and Naval Academy midshipmen participating in the
graduation and commissioning was "Navy Service Dress White" - i.e. the
familiar Navy "choker" white uniform with ribbons; medals and swords
were not prescribed with this uniform for this event.  Other military
service personnel who were participating wore their equivalent service
uniform in the same configuration.  Navy Service Dress White (and Marine
Corps equivalent) has been the prescribed uniform for Naval Academy
graduations in recent history, spanning the past several decades.
Graduating midshipmen did not wear swords because swords were not a
component of the service uniform prescribed for either this graduation
or many other previous graduations.
 
It may also be helpful to know that in conjunction with the graduation
and commissioning celebration, many family members and friends of
graduating Naval Academy midshipman present their graduate and newly
commissioned Navy ensign or Marine Corps second lieutenant the service's
ceremonial officer sword to symbolize the beginning of their careers as
officers in the naval service.
 
The May 22nd graduation was attended by nearly 30,000 people, all of
which had to undergo required security screening.  As a matter of
routine measures associated with similar events, attendees were required
to be screened through magnetometers, and were prohibited from bringing
large bags, large electronic items, and any instruments or tools that
could be considered weapons or appear to be weapons.  The Naval Academy
advised the graduates and their families about the strict security
associated with the graduation and recommended that families not bring
certain items, including ceremonial swords.  The intent was to avoid any
additional stadium entry delays and to preclude family members from
possibly not being able to attend their midshipman's graduation.  This
was consistent with many previous graduation ceremonies.
 
I hope that this helps explain any misunderstandings on these issues.
 
Respectfully
USNA Public Affairs Office

A group of academics and researchers have released a report today on the latest DoD’s “Fact Sheet” on Guantanamo detainees, and their findings are troubling. As you may recall, the DoD report says 74 former prisoners “re-engaged in terrorist activities.” But the further one delves into the report, the more vexing the numbers become. Some are listed as “confirmed” to be involved terrorist activities while most are “suspected.” And as we wrote about, the threshold for becoming suspected terrorist operative is quite low. The researchers questioned the accuracy and indeed the legitimacy of the DoD reports.

April’s report was the fourth fact sheet released by the DoD, yet the independent study finds that “each of these ‘partial’ lists has proven rife with errors, inconsistencies and inflated statistics.” Indeed, someone listed as a confirmed terrorist in an earlier fact sheet may be listed as a suspected one in the next. How the public first learned about this latest report has also come under fire. As reporting by my colleague Tom Lasseter shows in this exceptional series, dig a little deeper into these detainee stories, and one discovers the charges that led to a detainees’ arrest --and release -- were often flimsy.

And yet underlying all of this – particularly as the Obama administration have promised to close the facility in January – are some basic questions: How does the United States decide who is a threat and why, after seven years, can this nation not do a better job of answering basic questions about detainees once held under U.S. custody?

Today, President Obama named Republican Congressman John McHugh as the 21st Secretary of the Army. And because this is Washington, one of the first questions people asked around here was, “How much was this nomination political?”

McHugh has never served in the military.  But he is a nine-term congressman from New York who is one of the few Republicans who can say he easily wins elections in that traditionally liberal state. He has served on the House Armed Services Committee for 16 years and now is a ranking member. And it is not likely his replacement on the House side will generate the kind of elections results he did. The last election he won 65 percent of the vote. That is, he is the kind of congressman the Republicans hate to lose to a Democratic administration, the thinking goes. 

So how much was his nomination based on qualifications for the job? And how much was based on politics?

To be fair, Capitol Hill has become a popular recruiting spot for the post. McHugh’s predecessor, Pete Geren was a democratic member of Congress when the Bush administration tapped him for the job.

Here is Obama’s statement on the nomination: “Today, I am proud to announce John McHugh as the next Secretary of the Army.  John is a distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe and keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their families.  He is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.  As Secretary of the Army, he will ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to meet the full spectrum of challenges and threats of our time. And John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home, and he brings patriotism and a pragmatism that has won him respect on both sides of the aisle.  I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.”