Us Navy

Us Navy
New Navy

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

FW: American Legion News Clips Wednesday News 06-04-14



Thank You
Robert Serge
VVA 17 Member
Blog Master
To all my fellow veterans friends and family my we all remember 


Subject: FW: American Legion News Clips Wednesday News 06-04-14
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:11:06 -0700


For your information.

 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:33 AM
 
Subject: Fwd: Wednesday News 06-04-14

-----Original Message-----
From: March, Joseph H. <jmarch@legion.org>
Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 5:37 am
Subject: Wednesday News 06-04-14
American Legion News Clips – June 4

American Legion launches Phoenix crisis command center…  
OPINION: We owe vets a lot more than this…
Legion supports Veterans Choice Act…
VA healthcare crisis sparks competing solutions in Congress…
How the VA fostered a culture of gaming the system…
Inside the Obama administration's debate over freeing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
Critics are questioning American military credo of leaving no one behind…
VA reform could face Senate deadlock…
The accelerating spread of terrorism…

Interim VA secretary rolls up his sleeves on care…

Lawmaker wants vets to be able to seek private care without pre-approval…

And more.
_______________________________________________________________________

Newszap (AZ)

American Legion launches Phoenix crisis command center  
Staff reports
Independent Newsmedia Inc. USA
June 3, 2014
The American Legion is sending a team of experts to Phoenix next week to set up a Veterans Crisis Command Center in an effort to help veterans and family members affected by the health-care scandal at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

The crisis center, which will be at American Legion Post 1, 364 N. 7th Ave., will open its doors at noon Monday June 10, according to a press release.

This effort is the American Legion's latest response to the situation at the VA facility that has kept 1,400 veterans waiting for medical appointments, and kept another 1,700 off any type of waiting list, the release states.

"We came to Phoenix last month and heard complaints from many veterans at our town hall meeting," said Verna Jones, director of the Legion's Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation Division in Washington.

"Not only are we going there to listen again, but we are going to follow up on their concerns, and provide services and support in their time of crisis."

Another town hall meeting for local veterans and the community at large is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, June 9, also at American Legion Post 1.

The next day, Ms. Jones and her staff will meet with the Phoenix VA facility's acting director and staff to learn about their action plan to provide immediate care for more than 3,000 veterans who have been waiting for their medical care, the release states.

According to Ms. Jones, the crisis center will provide veterans with a "triage team" to assist with benefits claims and enrollment in VA healthcare and bereavement counseling.

In addition, accredited American Legion representatives will also help to enroll veterans into the VA health-care system, and help those who believe their care has been unduly delayed but not yet identified as such by VA, the release states.

Ron Abrams, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program in Washington, will also be available to discuss any legal issues with visitors. He is also an accredited American Legion representative.

Ralph Bozella, chairman of The American Legion's Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation Commission, said the crisis center in Phoenix will serve as a template for helping veterans in other cities affected by VA's wait-list scandal.

"The American Legion wants to help restore the faith of veterans in the VA health-care system," Mr. Bozella said in a prepared statement.

"We can do that by reaching out and helping people affected by the current VA scandal. That's why we're going to Phoenix. That's why we'll be going to other cities where men and women who have served America need our help."

The crisis center will be open from noon to 8 p.m. on June 10; from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on June 11 and June 12; and 8 a.m. to noon on June 13.



Daily Record (NJ)
OPINION: We owe vets a lot more than this
By Carl J. Asszony
June 4, 2014
"A nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten."
- Calvin Coolidge
There is no way to gloss over the serious, and tragic nature of the Veteran's Administration health care scandal. There are reports that more than 25 VA health care facilities across the country have been involved in "special waiting lists" and delayed appointments which may have caused the death of many as 40 veterans, and unnecessarily put others near death. There are also accusations of falsifying records, mis-diagnosing patient ailments, and destruction of documents.
Chief of the VA, Eric Shinseki said he is "mad as hell" and President Obama claims to be "madder than hell" about this situation. These make great sound bites for televison, but what about the veterans and their families who are suffering because of unscrupulous and uncaring executives and managers of those VA health care facilities? How mad should they be?
This VA debacle should not be considered just another political scandal that can be swept under the rug, or pushed off until the people finally forget. This is a problem whose solution should be devoid of politics for it affects the lives, welfare and health of the nine million veterans and their families within the VA health care system. Former President Harry Truman had a small plaque on his desk which read "The buck stops here," yet, it seems in present day Washington the "buck" stops nowhere and no one seems to accept responsibility for their actions. It has been reported that those at the very top levels of government knew about these problems at certain facilities for many years, yet did nothing to alleviate them.
Daniel M. Dellinger, National Commander of the American Legion, along with other veteran's organizations, want to see Secretary Shinseki fired for his "bureaucratic incompetence and failed leadership" while at the same time praising him for his military service. However, Dellinger makes it clear that the great tragedy of these events is that it "undeniably besmirches the compassionate work of thousands of dedicated VA employees and the outstanding care that many facilities provide."
To assure New Jersey veterans of its commitment to their health care needs, and to respond to the recent VA scandal, the N.J. Veterans Health Care recently issued the following statement:
"The employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Jersey Health Care System care deeply for every veteran we are privileged to serve. Our goal is to provide the best quality, safe and effective health care and services our veterans have earned and deserve. Last fiscal year, we had the honor of serving almost 60,000 veterans at our two medical centers and nine community-based outpatient clinics, with close to 700,000 outpatient visits. We are committed to transparency and undergo multiple external, independent reviews every year to ensure that the care and services we provide are safe and appropriate."
In addition, the N.J. VA Health Care System provides patient advocates who focus on individual concerns and works directly with all departments to solve personal problems or special needs. Veterans in New Jersey can contact the patient advocates by calling 1-973-676-1000 extension 3399 or 2169 at the East Orange Campus and 1-908-647-0180 extension 4762 or 4595 at the Lyons Campus. There is also the Veteran's Advisory Council, which is composed of veterans from World War II all the way to recent conflicts. These volunteers represent various veteran's organizations working closely with the upper levels of management and staff of the state's VA Medical Centers to address veterans issues and help improve conditions at the medical centers. For more information call the Veterans Advisory Council at 1-908-647-0180 extension 4931 or 4495.
We won't know the full scope of this scandal for months. Whether there will be criminal charges brought against some of the executives or managers at certain facilities in question remains to be seen. As usual there will be investigations, reports, special hearings, words of condemnation, and the mandatory political speeches, but when all the hoopla ends will the problems be resolved? That is the real issue. This not the time for false promises, feigned ignorance, pretended anger, or political games. Our veterans deserve better.
Most people don't understand the ramifications of the VA health care scandal, or worse don't care The fact remains, however, those who are directly involved in this scandal and the government officials who allowed it to continue have betrayed this nation and its veterans, the families of veterans, and those dedicated to helping our veterans. It seems that those in government, and many in the general population, have either forgotten, or never understood this about our military and our veterans, that "so much is owed by so many to so few."
Carl J. Asszony of Piscataway is a member of the Veterans Advisory Council at the VA Medical Center, Lyons.
True Blue Tribune
Legion supports Veterans Choice Act
WASHINGTON, June 3, 2014 /True Blue Tribune/ — Legislation introduced in the Senate on June 3 would give veterans more choice and flexibility in their health-care treatment under certain conditions, such as the inability of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers to schedule appointments in a timely manner.
Veterans would be free to seek health care in the private sector if VA cannot schedule a timely appointment for them, or if they live more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical center or community-based outpatient clinic.
Under provisions of the American Legion-backed bill (authorized for only two years) VA enrollees would receive a "Choice Card" to use for medical care from a non-VA provider.
In his letter of support, American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger wrote that the bill "provides resources now to assist veterans being denied health care by lengthy wait-times."
Noting that any legislation addressing access to VA health care should protect the department as the primary means of care for veterans, Dellinger stated, "The health care veterans will receive through non-VA facilities will still be managed through VA's office of non-VA care….
"While this legislation expands on VA's existing authority to allow veterans to receive care outside the system when VA cannot meet the demand for care, it strengthens the system by providing clear direction on how that outside care will be managed with the end goal of bringing those veterans back into the system."
The measure would also improve transparency by directing VA to post on its medical center websites the current wait-times for appointments, and establish disciplinary procedures for any employee who knowingly falsifies data pertaining to wait-times and quality measures.
Provisions of the VA Management Accountability Act (H.R. 4031), which passed the House, are also included in the bill, which would give the VA Secretary the authority to demote or fire senior executives based on performance. 
Los Angeles Times

VA healthcare crisis sparks competing solutions in Congress


Competing legislation, upcoming elections could delay solutions to VA problems
As veterans' healthcare moves to the top of the congressional agenda,  Democrats and Republicans are offering competing proposals to respond to the scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Whether to expand the massive — and troubled — VA healthcare system or simply give veterans greater ability to seek private care promises to ignite Congress' customary partisan wrangling and complicate passage of reform legislation. 
Republican senators, led by  John McCain of Arizona, on Tuesday rolled out the Veterans Choice Act , which would allow veterans facing weeks-long waits at VA facilities to seek care from private doctors, at the VA's expense. 
A more sweeping measure sponsored by Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would give veterans who can't get timely appointments with VA doctors the option of going to community health centers, military hospitals or private doctors at the VA's expense. The bill, called the Restoring Veterans' Trust Act, also would authorize hiring more VA doctors and establishing more VA medical facilities.
The measures are among a spate of bills that have been hurriedly drafted in response to a scathing report by the VA inspector general last week. The interim report found a systemic problem in scheduling veterans for healthcare in a timely manner,  including instances in which VA staff falsified records to cover up long waits. Investigators found an average wait of 115 days for a sample of veterans at the VA facility in Phoenix. 
Although the inspector general's investigation of 42 sites is continuing, Congress isn't waiting to take up reform of the VA's system of 1,700 hospitals and clinics, which handle 85 million appointments a year. But, this being an election year, it won't be easy for lawmakers to reach agreement.
The House recently passed the VA Management Accountability Act to  make it easier for the VA secretary to fire or demote senior employees for poor performance.
But that measure has drawn criticism from employee groups, which said it could politicize the VA. "Nothing in the bill prevents a secretary from cleaning house under the guise of performance," the Senior Executives Assn. said in a letter to lawmakers.  
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, has written his own version of the measure to include protections for employees to prevent "wholesale political firings."
The challenge of getting a VA reform bill through Congress was apparent Tuesday when  Republican senators unveiled their bill to allow veterans who "can't schedule an appointment within a reasonable time or live too far away from the VA medical facility" to seek private care.
The bill also would prohibit the VA from using wait times in determining executives' bonuses and would require the VA secretary to establish penalties for falsifying records.
The GOP senators contended that Sanders' bill was too expansive.
The measure would give veterans who cannot get timely appointments with VA doctors the option of going to community health centers, military hospitals or private doctors, and would authorize the VA to lease 27 new health facilities, including four in California (San Diego, Chico, Chula Vista and Redding). It would authorize emergency funding for the agency to hire new doctors and nurses. And it would authorize the National Health Service Corps to forgive college loans for doctors and nurses who go to work at the VA.
"The simple truth is that, with 2 million more veterans coming into the system in recent years, there are many facilities within the VA that do not have the doctors, nurses and other personnel that they need to provide quality care in a timely way," Sanders said Sunday as he unveiled his legislation.
The Republican senators say their bill is more targeted.
"It's not encompassing everything that Congress would like to pass as it relates to VA legislation, but it addresses the urgent things needed right now,"  said Sen. Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
But Sanders said in an interview in the Capitol on Tuesday that the GOP bill "doesn't get to the root cause of the problem."
"The problem is that there are VA facilities all over this country who don't have enough doctors, don't have enough nurses, and we need to make sure they get them as quickly as possible," he said. 
"It goes without saying that right now, where there are waiting lists, we are going to get veterans the help they need immediately," Sanders said, referring to allowing veterans who face long waits at VA facilities to go to military hospitals, community health centers or private doctors.
A broad veterans bill stalled in the Senate this year amid partisan wrangling. But since then, the VA problems have gained a sense of urgency.
The Senate committee is to consider legislation Thursday.  And Senate Democratic leaders have indicated that they will put the bill on a fast track, possibly taking up legislation before the end of the week.
Burr said the Republican bill "empowers the veteran to make the decision, versus relying on a bureaucrat to determine that they want to divert money from the VA facility to outside payment."
In fiscal 2013, the VA spent about $4.8 billion, or about one-tenth of its healthcare costs, on private care, often for veterans who live far from VA facilities or veterans in need of care unavailable at a VA facility.
The idea of expanding veterans' ability to seek private care enjoys strong support in the Republican-controlled House.
House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) has said he plans to introduce legislation to offer veterans unable to obtain a VA appointment within 30 days the option of seeking private care at VA expense. 
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Turlock) has introduced the Veterans Need Timely Access to Care Act, which would automatically make a veteran preauthorized for care from a local doctor or clinic outside of the VA if the wait time for an appointment was longer than seven days for primary care and 14 days for specialty care.
The LIU Post (NY)
Veterans at LIU Post Install American Legion Chapter on Campus
As part of the university's continued mission to provide assistance and support to our nation's men and women who have served in the U.S. armed forces, veterans at LIU Post founded the Admiral Richard L. Conolly American Legion Post No. 2014 and held an installation ceremony on May 28 to induct officers. The Post 2014 chapter is the first to be installed on a university campus in the state of New York. The event included the presentation of the charter, speakers and representation from the offices of both the Nassau County American Legion and from New York State American Legion, and other distinguished guests.
Representative Steve Israel (D-NY 3rd District) spoke at the event and presented an American flag that has flown over the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., to Michael Knavery ('13 B.S.), commander of the new Post 2014. "This college is a partner for veterans," said Israel. "It represents a new model for America."
"Our veteran students and their families are an integral part of our community," said Jackie Nealon, chief of staff and vice president of enrollment, campus life, and communications at LIU. "Their success instills pride in all of us. Like generations of veterans before them, who benefited greatly from government assistance such as the G.I. Bill, our nation's veterans will join our LIU community to serve as they did in uniform, with great pride and distinction."
The post has 20 members, all of whom are current or former students at LIU Post. The chapter is named after Admiral Conolly, one of our nation's top military leaders, who served in the U.S. Navy in World War I and II and, following his military career, as president of LIU from 1953 to 1962. In attendance at the ceremony were two of his great-grandchildren, Victoria Conolly and Samuel Conolly, a specialist in the U.S. Army. On March 1, 1962, Admiral Conolly and his wife, Helen B. Conolly, were passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 1, which crashed into Jamaica Bay soon after take-off from Idlewild Airport—now John F. Kennedy International— in N.Y., killing all 95 passengers and crew aboard.
The American Legion was chartered in 1919 as a patriotic veterans' organization devoted to mutual helpfulness. It is the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, committed to mentoring youth and sponsorship of wholesome programs in our communities, advocating patriotism and honor, promoting strong national security, and continued devotion to fellow service members and veterans.
CBS Philly
Special Project With WWII Vets Earns Newtown Square Teen Eagle Scout Rank
June 4, 2014 2:51 AM
Joe Blaisse (credit: Blaisse family)
By Mark Abrams
NEWSTOWN SQUARE, Pa. (CBS) - A Newtown Square teenager soared to the rank of eagle scout and the special project that helped get him there has earned him national recognition.
Joe Blaisse, 17, of Troop 315, sponsored by Saint Anastasia Church in Newtown Square, joined forces with Honor Flight Philadelphia to help some 150 World War II veterans from the region travel to Washington D.C.
The junior at Archbishop Carroll High School recruited them for what he called one final mission – a trip to recognize their service and accompany them on a visit to monuments, including a stop at the World War II memorial.
"I did see multiple people wearing their actual uniforms that they then again fit in," Blaisse said. "Also, people wearing their hats, and we saw one man – their unit is allowed to wear Hawaiian shirts with their information on them to signify that they were a Pearl Harbor survivor."
Word of the project reached the American Legion which named Blaisse its national Eagle Scout of the year.
He also was recognized as the Legion's Pennsylvania Eagle Scout of the year and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Pennsylvania Scout of the Year.
Blaisse says the recognition is humbling.
"We're all given the same rank. It's just how well you exemplify what it means."
Washington Post
Inside the Obama administration's debate over freeing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
By Adam Goldman and Scott Wilson, Published: June 3 E-mail the writer
Within months of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's capture in Afghanistan, the Obama administration began considering plans for a rescue.
Bergdahl slipped away from his post in Afghanistan's Paktika province in June 2009 and fell into Taliban hands. He was then moved across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan, where he was held by the Haqqani network, a ­U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization with connections to Pakistan's intelligence service.
In exchange for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. agreed to free five Taliban commanders from the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They were among the Taliban's most influential commanders.
More from PostPolitics
The circumstances of Bergdahl's captivity forced the administration to decide whether it would be willing to share more intelligence with Pakistan's government, despite concerns about its loyalties, or deploy troops to try to grab Bergdahl. On each count, the answer from many inside the administration was no.
"There were negotiating paths we could have explored other than the Taliban in Doha," said David Sedney, who until last year served as the Pentagon's top official overseeing policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Specifically, putting more pressure on the Pakistanis to get him or get us more intelligence. I am not aware of them actually helping us, despite repeated requests.
"It could have made the possibility of rescuing him more likely," Sedney said.
The long arc of Bergdahl's deployment and captivity is being scrutinized in light of the rising, mostly partisan debate over whether President Obama gave up too much to the Taliban for the 28-year-old soldier's release.
With Bergdahl's mother and father by his side, Obama celebrated the soldier's return Saturday as a late milestone in the United States' longest war and a necessary step in helping conclude America's post-9/11 era.
But an increasing number of Republicans said Tuesday that they would not have freed five Taliban commanders from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for one soldier.
"I think we should have made efforts to bring Bergdahl home, but this price is higher than any in history," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who as a Navy pilot was held captive in North Vietnam for six months longer than Bergdahl's time with the Taliban.
Other congressional leaders, including some Democrats, criticized the administration for not notifying Congress of the exchange in the time frame outlined by law.
Obama, traveling in Poland on Tuesday, offered a forceful defense of his decision.
"We saw an opportunity, and we were concerned about Bergdahl's health," he said, adding that assurances from the government of Qatar, the Persian Gulf emirate where the released Taliban commanders will remain for at least a year, helped solidify the deal.
"Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely," Obama said. "There's a certain recidivism rate that takes place."
The debate has been shaped by simmering frustration within military ranks. Some have found fault with national security adviser Susan Rice's comments on a Sunday news show, when she said Bergdahl had served "with distinction and honor," despite questions about the circumstances around his capture.
U.S. military officials signaled Tuesday that they will investigate those circumstances along with allegations that Bergdahl, possibly disenchanted with the war effort, willingly abandoned his post.
Criticism from Congress
On the Hill, Democrats were more vocal than in previous days in expressing their concern that the White House did not notify Congress of the Guantanamo detainee release ahead of time.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 requires the administration to notify Congress at least 30 days before releasing a prisoner from Guantanamo. But Obama, in what is known as a signing statement, forecast that he may disregard the rule because he believed that it unlawfully restrained his presidential authority.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that deputy national security adviser Antony J. Blinken called her Monday night to apologize for failing to notify her of the release before it was disclosed publicly.
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the phone call, said Blinken told Feinstein "that we regretted we were not able to reach some members personally on Saturday."
"We have been very clear about the reasons we did not notify the Congress 30 days in advance," the official said.
Indirect talks between the United States and the Taliban, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in pursuit of a broad political reconciliation began in early 2011. That same year, according to House Republican aides, the White House first mentioned the possibility of a prisoner exchange for Bergdahl's release.
Soon afterward, House Republicans sent two letters to the Obama administration seeking more information on the possibility of an exchange, the aides said, and another briefing with the administration followed on Jan. 31, 2012.
GOP aides said the next time congressional Republicans spoke with the administration about the issue was Saturday, when a Pentagon official called an adviser to House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) with word of Bergdahl's release.
"I haven't had a conversation with the White House on this issue in a year and a half," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday. "If that's keeping us in the loop, then this administration is more arrogant than I thought they were."
A complicated debate
Inside the administration, the calculations over Bergdahl's fate were complicated by seemingly unrelated events, including the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in May 2011, when U.S. forces traveled deep into Pakistan and killed the al-Qaeda leader. The operation infuriated Pakistan's government and raised fears among U.S. officials that their uncertain ally's already mixed support for the war effort would wane further.
Around that time, U.S. officials began to contemplate an operation to rescue Bergdahl, according to a former senior administration official who participated in the discussions.
At least twice before Bergdahl's release, U.S. officials had a possible fix on where he was being held, but some administration officials familiar with the intelligence said there were gaps that left his circumstances unclear. And there were strong voices opposed to an operation, led by then-national security adviser Thomas Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough, who is now White House chief of staff.
Their concern, the official said, was further angering Pakistan's government and spy agency, which has close connections to the Haqqani network.
Those who supported a rescue operation included Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then-CIA Director Leon E. Panetta. Their argument in favor of a high-risk, lower-reward operation than the bin Laden raid eventually failed.
During the same debate, officials were considering the emerging prisoner-exchange proposal. White House advisers believed that a successful exchange would not only free Bergdahl but would also encourage moderate Taliban members to take an Afghan-led reconciliation process seriously.
But Panetta and other officials — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. — opposed the terms of the proposed prisoner exchange, according to the official.
Clinton replied in writing to the written concerns of lawmakers in between the various meetings, according to House aides. The contents of her responses were deemed classified and were not available for review by reporters, the aides said Tuesday. Clinton, now considering a run for president in 2016, on Tuesday publicly endorsed the deal to free Bergdahl that the official said she once privately opposed.
A spokesman for Clapper said that he, like others, had expressed concern about the proposal but added that "circumstances have changed dramatically," citing concerns about Bergdahl's declining health, the drawdown of U.S. troops and cooperation from Qatar in monitoring the detainees after their release.
Another former Obama administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret process, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, who took over from Mullen as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began a renewed effort to free Bergdahl about a year ago.
Dempsey, concerned that time was running out to make a deal for Bergdahl before the U.S. combat mission concluded at the end of this year, was searching for new ideas.
"They were looking at what are the options that are currently available to get this kid home one way or the other," said a U.S. counterterrorism adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the search.
"He wanted all the theoretical options on the table. Dempsey knew there was a short window. Obama was looking for a way out of Afghanistan," the adviser added. "Those things were communicated. It has a cascade effect."
Stars & Stripes
Senate GOP presses new bill to overhaul VA
Stars and Stripes
June 3, 2014
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday unveiled their plan to repair the troubled Department of Veterans Affairs health care system by weeding out wrongdoing and expanding access to private care.
The bill allows veterans to choose a private provider if they live far from VA facilities or have difficulty getting timely care. It also gives the VA secretary more leeway to fire senior executives and forces the department to set new punishments for employees who falsify records, according to McCain and co-sponsors Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
The Republicans floated the legislation just a day after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with the Democrats, filed a wide-ranging VA reform bill that would also provides wider access to private care and more authority for the VA secretary to remove incompetent executives.
"Unlike Sen. Sanders' bill, this addresses the root cause of the current VA scandal," which is long waiting times for patients to receive care, and employee wrongdoing, McCain said.
The senators claimed their bill is more focused than Sanders' legislation, which also covers physician hiring, facility leases, scholarships, software upgrades, cost-of-living assistance adjustments for servicemembers, tuition assistance and a raft of other issues.
Congress has been grappling with how to fix the VA health care system after a whistleblower revealed that off-the-books wait lists at a Phoenix hospital might be linked to the deaths of 40 veterans. A VA inspector general report last week found the potentially dangerous patient scheduling abuses were systemic in the department.
The Republican said their bill would reduce waiting times for care by giving veterans an access card that could be used at a provider of their choice if they live more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic, or the VA cannot provide an appointment within two weeks, its stated standard.
Also, the bill closely follows legislation passed in the House last month giving the VA secretary power to fire or demote senior executives without going through the usual administrative process, which requires any actions to be based on formal performance reviews, according to a summary of the bill supplied by McCain's office. The House bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., was passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.
The department would also be required to create a new policy outlining punishments including civil penalties, unpaid suspensions and termination for VA employees who falsify records related to patient wait times and health care quality.
The IG investigation in Phoenix discovered that 1,700 veterans — 54 percent — seeking primary care were left off official electronic waiting lists until shortly before they could be seen by medical staff, which created the appearance the hospital was meeting VA goals for shorter wait times. In a small sample of veterans, 84 percent waited on average 115 days for their first primary care appointment.
It was unclear Tuesday how the Republicans' and Sanders' bills would be reconciled.
"We're willing to listen to debate and amendments, and if (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid will agree to that, I think we could get a veterans' health choice bill through this Senate in a week," McCain said.
Sanders' office said the senator had been considering a new trimmed down bill even before the GOP press conference Tuesday.
The new bill might focus primarily on new powers for the VA secretary to fire and demote senior executives but could also include some other popular measures that are not yet decided, a spokesman said.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., proposed a bill in the Senate last month that focused on eliminating what lawmakers feel is an entrenched and poorly performing VA bureaucracy by giving the VA secretary more power to fire executives, who are part of a special class of federal employee with specific rules on how they can be let go or demoted.
But his attempt at a floor vote was blocked by Sanders, who said the issue needed more discussion.
On Tuesday, Rubio again urged Reid, D-Nev., to allow a vote on his reform bill, which he said is backed by 10 Democrats in the chamber.
"Their backing means there is currently a strong bipartisan support for this legislation," Rubio said in a released statement, "which would bring accountability to VA and empower the leadership therein to make the same hiring and firing decisions you enjoy as a United States senator with your own staff."
Washington Post
How the VA fostered a culture of gaming the system
By David A. Fahrenthold
The Washington Post
June 2, 2014
WASHINGTON — About two years ago, Brian Turner took a job as a scheduling clerk at a Veterans Affairs health clinic in Austin, Texas. A few weeks later, he said, a supervisor came by to instruct him how to cook the books.
"The first time I heard it was actually at my desk. They said, 'You gotta zero out the date. The wait time has to be zeroed out,'" Turner recalled in a phone interview. He said "zeroing out" was a trick to fool the VA's own accountability system, which the bosses up in Washington used to monitor how long patients waited to see the doctor.
This is how it worked: A patient asked for an appointment on a specific day. Turner found the next available time slot. But, often, it was many days later than the patient had wanted.
Would that later date work? If the patient said yes, Turner canceled the whole process and started over. This time, he typed in that the patient had wanted that later date all along. So now, the official wait time was ... a perfect zero days.
It was a lie, of course. But it seemed to be a very important lie, one that the system depended on. "Two to three times a month, you would hear something about it," Turner said — another reminder from supervisors to "zero out." "It wasn't a secret at all."
But all this was apparently a secret to Secretary Eric Shinseki, perched 12 levels above Turner in the VA's towering bureaucracy. Somewhere underneath Shinseki — among the undersecretaries and deputy undersecretaries and bosses and sub-bosses — the fact that clerks were cheating the system was lost.
On Friday, Shinseki resigned and was replaced by his deputy.
But his departure is unlikely to solve the VA's broader problem — a bureaucracy that had been taught, over time, to hide its problems from Washington. Indeed, as President Barack Obama said, one of the agency's key failings was that bad news did not reach Shinseki's level at all.
This is an ironic development: Until recently, the VA had been seen as a Washington success story. In the 1990s, reformers had cut back on its middle management and started using performance data so managers at the top could keep abreast of problems at the bottom.
Then that success began to unravel.
As the VA's caseload increased during two wars, the agency grew thick around the middle again. And then, when the people at the bottom started sending in fiction, the people at the top took it as fact.
"Shinseki goes up to Capitol Hill, and says, 'I didn't know anything.' I find it perfectly believable," said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who has studied the bureaucracy of the VA and others in Washington. "And that's a real problem."
For decades, the VA was a byword for bureaucracy itself, seen as Washington's ultimate paper-pushing, mind-bending hierarchy. That reputation was rooted in the VA's history: It came about because the agency's first leader was an audacious crook.
Charles Forbes was chosen to head the Veterans Bureau by his poker buddy, President Warren Harding, in 1921. He was a poor choice. Forbes took kickbacks. He sold off federal supplies. He wildly misspent taxpayer money — once buying a 100-year supply of floor wax, enough to polish a floor the size of Indiana, for 25 times the regular price (apparently as a favor to a floor wax company).
Eventually, Forbes was caught. The president was unhappy. In 1923, a White House visitor opened the wrong door and found Harding choking Forbes with his bare hands.
"You yellow rat! You double-crossing bastard!" Harding was saying, according to historians. When he noticed the visitor, he let go of Forbes' neck.
Forbes was eventually convicted of bribery and conspiracy. But afterward, the VA's next leaders built in layers of bureaucracy and paperwork — to be sure that nobody would ever have the same freedom to steal.
Seventy years after Forbes was gone, the place was still wrapped in that red tape.
That was clear on the day that Kenneth Kizer — a reformer appointed by President Bill Clinton — arrived at the VA's health service.
"I had to approve reimbursement of a secretary ... purchasing a cable for her computer. I think it was something like $11 or $12," Kizer said. There was a form. He had to sign it personally. "Here I'm running this multibillion-dollar organization with — at that time — 200,000 employees. And I'm having to approve reimbursements for somebody."
Kizer set out to change that. He cut back on staffing at VA headquarters in Washington and at regional headquarters. He cut out layers in the chain of command. And he embraced the idea that statistics could allow the agency's leaders to peer around those middlemen and see the bottom from the top.
If patients at a certain hospital were waiting too long for appointments, they wouldn't have to wait for the news to travel from a scheduling clerk to a supervisor, from the supervisor to a chief, from the chief to the hospital director, from the hospital director to the region, and from the region to Washington.
Instead, Washington could just watch the numbers and see for itself.
In theory.
Today, 15 years after he left the VA, Kizer said he's frustrated to see that one of his solutions — that numbers-based system — become the problem itself. Instead of alerting the bosses to problems in the field, it has been perverted to cover them up.
"The measures have become the end," Kizer said in a phone interview from California, "As opposed to a means to an end."
Failing to deliver the bad news
Today, even after a massive influx of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that increased the number of VA patients by nearly 2 million, the VA health system still does many things well. The satisfaction rate for patients who have been treated by the VA is over 80 percent.
But in many places, veterans were waiting too long to get the care they need.
"When you actually get in the room with a doctor, it's OK. But it's what it takes to get to that point that I think is the problem," said Stewart Hickey, national executive director of the veterans service group AMVETS. "You're sick today. Three weeks from now, you're either cured or you're dead."
One great test of any bureaucracy is whether it can effectively deliver bad news to the top of its chain of command.
In recent years, the VA health system started to fail that test.
"That's what, to me, makes this event so shocking," said Scott Gould, who spent four years as Shinseki's second-in command. Gould left the VA last year. Gould said that Shinseki tried hard to show he was open to bad news. Three times a year, in fact, Shinseki spent a solid week meeting with regional VA medical directors.
That was 63 separate four-hour interviews, every year. But, apparently, his message of openness wasn't enough: In those hours of meetings, nobody told Shinseki what so many people in his system apparently knew.
"I find it shocking that anyone could believe that they were expected to dissemble" about performance measures, Gould said.
This is how the system was failing: As the VA's patient load grew, new layers of middle management slowly reappeared. And all the way at the bottom of the VA's 12-level chain of command were the schedulers — the ones who had to match veterans with doctors.
There were too many veterans. There were too few doctors.
So what should they do?
One choice was to tell the truth — tell the computer how long veterans were waiting for an appointment. That was what Shinseki said he wanted, 12 levels up and miles away in Washington.
But, according to people with experience in scheduling, it was often the opposite of what lower-level bureaucrats wanted. In some cases, local officials' bonuses depended on the numbers looking good. So, at some point years ago, they began asking clerks to change the numbers — with practices like "zeroing it out." Cheating was made easier by the VA's ancient computer systems, designed decades ago.
For many clerks, the choice between the bureaucrats they knew and the secretary they didn't was obvious.
"They would say, 'Change the "desired date" to the date of the appointment,'" said one employee knowledgeable about scheduling practices at a VA medical center. The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, decided to go along with those requests. Fighting the order to lie wasn't worth it.
"You know, in the end, the veteran got the appointment that was available anyway," the employee said. "It didn't affect the veteran's care."
No feedback loop
Way back in 2005, federal auditors found evidence that clerks were not entering the numbers correctly. By 2010, the problem seemed to be widespread, the VA health service sent out a memo listing 17 different "work-arounds," including the one that Turner was taught in Texas. Stop it, the VA said.
They didn't. By 2012, in fact, one VA official told Congress he wasn't sure how to force people to send in the real numbers.
"Because of the fact that the gaming is so prevalent, as soon as something is put out, it is torn apart to look to see what the work-around is," said William Schoenhard, who was then the deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management, an upper mid-level official that VA employees call the "dushom." "There's no feedback loop."
That was the key. There was no feedback loop. The system that had been set up to let the top of the VA's bureaucracy watch the bottom was no longer working. It was sending back science fiction, and the VA's top brass seemed either ignorant of the deceptions or powerless to stop them.
This week, federal auditors provided stark evidence of the problem that VA's leaders had missed. The auditors had studied 226 veterans who got appointments at the VA medical center in Phoenix. The official data showed they waited an average of 24 days for an appointment. In reality, the average wait was 115 days.
Afterward, Shinseki called that finding "reprehensible."
But, to the doctor who used to run the VA's Phoenix emergency room, the findings were no surprise. Katherine Mitchell said that the ER was often overburdened by patients with non-urgent problems, who simply couldn't get an appointment with their regular doctors.
Mitchell said she's been shifted to another job at the VA after complaining about inadequate staffing and other problems with care in Phoenix. She said Shinseki's long experience in the U.S. Army had not prepared him well for the VA.
"In the military, if you say, 'Do something,' it's done," said Mitchell, who has spent 16 years at the VA. "I suspect that he wasn't aware that in VA, it's not like that. If you say, 'Do something,' it's covered up. It's fixed by covering it up."
Now, VA's leaders have been faced with a startling failure. The bureaucracy below them wasn't telling them the truth about wait times. The numbers system they set up to go around the bureaucracy wasn't, either.
The only answer, now, has been to send people out to VA clinics to talk to schedulers, face to face. Before the auditors went out, they were warned they might hear evidence that clerks had been cheating the system.
"If this occurs, remain calm," the VA counseled auditors in a memo. It suggested follow-up questions. "Have you brought this to anyone's attention? If needed, follow up with: What has been the response?"
Think Progress
By Igor Volsky June 3, 2014 at 10:30 am
On Tuesday, President Obama defended his administration's decision to bring home U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity, pushing back against critics who argue that Bergdahl's public protest of America's mission in Afghanistan and possible desertion to Pakistan in 2009 made him unworthy of rescue.
"The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind," Obama said in Warsaw, Poland. "Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop."
Since Obama's decision to trade Bergdahl for five Taliban-linked militants imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Republican lawmakers, conservative commentators, and even some soldiers who served in Bergdahl's unit have accused the administration of endangering American security by releasing high level Taliban officials into Afghanistan while American soldiers are still in the country. They also argue that Bergdahl's growing disillusioned with the U.S. Army make his return less than desirable.
"I think the whole transaction represents really bad staff work. I'd be very, very careful before you run the president out to sort of claim victory at having earned the release of somebody who in effect went AWOL apparently, and left his post. So if I were there, I would not have supported the transaction," former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Monday night. His comments echo similar sentiment expressed on Twitter by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and conservative publications that labeled Bergdahl a traitor.
However, General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repudiated the notion that certain prisoners of war or hostages are not patriotic enough to be rescued, writing on Facebook that "the questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity." He added that while Bergdahl should be considered "innocent until proven guilty," the Army's leaders "will not look away from misconduct if it occurred."
That sentiment is shared by veterans and POW groups. "We hope the Department of Defense does a complete investigation of the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl's initial disappearance and take whatever steps are warranted by the findings of that investigation," American Legion National Commander Daniel Dellinger said in a statement.
"It's totally premature for anyone to be jumping to conclusions until more is known, clearly he is undergoing some medical treatment and evaluation now and until a thorough investigation is done, I just think it's inappropriate to be speculating on the circumstances that nobody knows much about," Ann Mills-Griffiths, Chairman of the Board of the National League of POW/MIA Families, told ThinkProgress.
During his remarks, Obama also responded to charges that he circumvented a law requiring Congress to be notified 30 days before prisoners are transferred from Guantanamo Bay. "We have consulted with Congress for quite some time that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange," Obama claimed, noting that officials acted quickly out of concern for Bergdahl's declining health. "The process was truncated because we wanted to make sure we did not miss that window," he said.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) admitted on MSNBC's Morning Joe Tuesday that "in 2011 [the administration] did present a plan that included a prisoner transfer." He claimed the committee hadn't heard anything since.
 New York Times
Critics Are Questioning American Military Credo Of Leaving No One Behind

June 4, 2014

By Eric Schmitt, Mark Mazzetti and Peter Baker


WASHINGTON – The deadly rescue mission in Afghanistan in 2002 began when Petty Officer First Class Neil C. Roberts, a member of the Navy's classified SEAL Team Six, fell out of a helicopter that came under enemy fire as it tried to land on the snowy ridge line of an 11,000-foot mountain.

Petty Officer Roberts was swarmed by Qaeda fighters almost immediately, and was nearly certain to die, but teams of Special Operations troops and Army Rangers were sent to the mountain in an attempt to rescue him. By nightfall, seven American troops had died on the jagged rocks that came to be known as "Roberts Ridge." Petty Officer Roberts's body was eventually found and taken off the mountain.

That costly attempted rescue remains one of the most vivid examples of the military's time-honored ethos to leave behind none of its own on the battlefield. It is a tradition that has underpinned American efforts to rescue service members captured or stranded behind enemy lines from World War II to Vietnam to the "Black Hawk Down" raid in Somalia and the war in Afghanistan.

But now this credo is being questioned by critics who say it is one thing to risk lives to rescue a comrade captured in battle, and another to take the same risks for someone they accuse of being a deserter.

In the days since President Obama announced the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who military officials say voluntarily walked off his post in Afghanistan in 2009 and was seized by the Taliban, the initial euphoria over his return has given way to accusations that the military took unwarranted risks to try to get him back. The attacks have put the White House on the defensive and forced the Pentagon to say it might take punitive action against Sergeant Bergdahl, 28.

Mr. Obama on Tuesday dismissed questions about whether Sergeant Bergdahl deserved special efforts. "The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: We don't leave our men or women in uniform behind," Mr. Obama told reporters in Warsaw during the first stop on his four-day European trip.

Asked about the circumstances of the capture of Sergeant Bergdahl by the Taliban, Mr. Obama said that no one had yet debriefed him – but he said that nothing changes the responsibility to try to recover him.

"Regardless of circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back," he said. "Period. Full stop. We don't condition that."
How important is this ethos?

"It's more important than a paycheck or a medal," said Gen. James N. Mattis, who from 2010 to 2013 led the military's Central Command, which oversees operations in Afghanistan. General Mattis said a horseshoe from the Bergdahl family home in Idaho hung outside his command's operations center.

The military's Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command employs 500 people to conduct global operations to try to account for the more than 83,000 Americans still unaccounted for from past conflicts.

The "Ranger Creed," an oath that every member of the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment must memorize upon joining the unit, declares, "I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy."

Pentagon officials initially dismissed the idea of court-martialing Sergeant Bergdahl, saying five years in captivity was punishment enough. But on Tuesday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John M. McHugh, the secretary of the Army, said the military would determine whether he had violated rules by leaving his post nearly five years ago.

"The questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity," General Dempsey wrote on his Facebook page. "When he is able to provide them, we'll learn the facts," the general said of Sergeant Bergdahl. "Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty."

"The Warrior Ethos is more than words, and we should never leave a comrade behind," Mr. McHugh said in a statement. "As Chairman Dempsey indicated, the Army will then review this in a comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with Sergeant Bergdahl to better learn from him the circumstances of his disappearance and captivity."

General Dempsey's Facebook posting and Mr. McHugh's statement – which the White House immediately sent around to reporters – are the strongest indications yet that the Defense Department may pursue some sort of punitive action.

One administration official said the decision by the White House to draw attention to statements was an indication of the heavy political pressure Mr. Obama had been under since his decision to swap five Taliban detainees from the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for Sergeant Bergdahl.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, General Dempsey also said that Sergeant Bergdahl's next promotion to staff sergeant, which was set to happen soon, was no longer automatic because the sergeant was not missing in action any longer. "Our Army's leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred," General Dempsey said. "In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. All other decisions will be made thereafter, and in accordance with appropriate regulations, policies and practices."

White House officials said they recognized that the prisoner swap would invite political attacks but that there was no serious internal debate about whether to go forward with it. While aware of the questions about Sergeant Bergdahl's capture, officials said they were deemed largely irrelevant to the decision.

Any American, regardless of how he came to be held, should be recovered if possible, they said, and it was implausible to think of ending the war without taking the opportunity to recover him. If Sergeant Bergdahl were killed by his captors, they knew, the White House would have been criticized for not working harder to secure his release.

But anticipating criticism over the swap with the Taliban, White House officials decided to invite Sergeant Bergdahl's parents to stand by Mr. Obama's side in the Rose Garden when he announced the deal. They hoped to emphasize the human story of parents desperate for the return of their son, something many Americans could identify with even if queasy about negotiating with the Taliban. As it happened, the parents were already in Washington for Memorial Day events.

John B. Bellinger III, who was the top lawyer at the State Department under President George W. Bush, said Sergeant Bergdahl "will have to face justice, military justice."

"We don't leave soldiers on the battlefield under any circumstance unless they have actually joined the enemy army," Mr. Bellinger told Fox News on Tuesday. "He was a young 20-year-old. Young 20-year-olds make stupid decisions. I don't think we'll say if you make a stupid decision we'll leave you in the hands of the Taliban."

Politico
VA Reform Could Face Senate Deadlock

June 3, 2014

By Burgess Everett and Jeremy Herb


The Senate's fix to veterans health care problems might be headed down a familiar path: Right into the chamber's procedural chokehold.

There are already signs that Veterans Affairs Department reform could become the next victim of the Senate's election-year legislative war over amendments votes. Those votes have killed popular tax break and energy efficiency bills in recent weeks and translated to a paucity of legislative votes since last summer.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) posed an offer to Republicans: The Senate will vote on a version of a House-passed bill that seeks to allow the VA to clear out bad actors caught up in the health-care scandal. In return, Reid is demanding a vote on legislation devised by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would create 27 new VA health facilities, expand veterans access to health care at community centers and encourage the VA to hire more doctors and nurses.

But Reid wants to work quickly – and he seemed unenthusiastic about offering Republicans votes on amendments, which would include a roll call on an alternate proposal developed by GOP Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
"I don't know when we will have all these amendments. Because there's a trip going to Normandy – 10, 11, 12 senators going there Thursday afternoon," Reid said. "We'll do amendments if they're willing to work a few extra days."

Notably, Senate Republicans have not yet ruled out Reid's offer. They began discussing it at a Tuesday caucus meeting and are likely to arrive at a decision during a Wednesday party lunch.
"That's something that we're going to have to talk about," said Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). "If there's one subject that ought to be bipartisan, it ought to be veterans."

His Democratic counterpart was less enthusiastic. Asked if the procedural fight would rear it's head even on the politically sensitive issue of caring for veterans when they return home, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "Best bet is yes. And hope that you're wrong."

The GOP alternative would allow veterans to receive care from a non-VA provider if they can't be seen promptly or are more than 50 miles from a VA medical facility or community clinic.
The bill, called the "Veterans Choice Act," would also provide the head of the VA the ability to demote or fire VA executives like the House-passed bill that has been pushed in the Senate by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

McCain said if he can't get a vote on his alternative, there's little hope for the Sanders legislation. He said that bill is sure to fail without some sort of procedural agreement that allows a vote on the Republican proposal.

"Bring up the Sanders bill if you want to, and let us do amendments. We have our own proposal," McCain said. "How can I look veterans in the face and say: 'I just rubber stamped a bill that doesn't have the provisions in it that I think are vital?'"

An alternate path would be for Sanders and McCain to convene a group of lawmakers in both parties and hammer out a bill that could attract 60 votes, with or without amendments. McCain vowed to begin negotiations with Democrats on such a proposal on Tuesday afternoon – but there's a yawning gap between the two measures.

"Sen. McCain's bill doesn't address the underlying causes," Sanders told reporters Tuesday. "The problem is that there are VA facilities that don't have enough doctors … we are going to give veterans the help need immediately. That means private doctors, that means community health centers, DoD health centers."

Wall Street Journal
The Accelerating Spread Of Terrorism

Since 2010, there has been a 58% increase in the number of jihadist groups world-wide.

June 4, 2014

By Seth G. Jones


President Obama's decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2016 is a risky step and may embolden Islamic extremists. So could the release of five high-level prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in a swap with the Taliban to win the freedom of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing, not shrinking. U.S. disengagement – or even risking the return of terrorists to the field by freeing them from detention – is not the answer to the threat they pose. Instead, U.S. strategy should be revamped, prioritizing American interests and developing a more effective, light-footprint campaign.

According to new data in a RAND report I have written, from 2010 to 2013 the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58%, to 49 from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100,000; and the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392. The most significant terrorism threat to the United States comes from groups operating in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who was a member of the al Qaeda affiliate organization al-Nusra, blew himself up in Syria on March 29.

Today the U.S. faces complex, significant threats beyond jihadi terrorism. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens America's NATO allies. China is flexing its military, economic and cyber muscles in East Asia. Iran remains dedicated to developing a nuclear-weapons capability. North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, is highly unstable.

Still, these nations are not to our knowledge actively plotting attacks against the American homeland. A handful of terrorist groups, however, remain dedicated to attacking the U.S. at home and overseas.
Some of these groups have an interest and ability to strike the U.S. homeland. They are a top priority, and include al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula based in Yemen, and the core al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There are also individuals like the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, who read al Qaeda propaganda and used sources, such as al Qaeda's Inspire magazine, to build their bombs. The growing number of radicalized Americans fighting against the Assad regime has also raised the threat from Syria.

Some analysts and policy makers have played down the threat from al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been weakened because of persistent U.S. pressure. But its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remains committed to striking the U.S. He is flanked by a number of Americans, such as Abdullah al-Shami and Adam Gadahn, who support that goal.

Given the high-level threat posed by these groups, and the limited capacity of local governments, the U.S. should engage long-term in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly Syria. The strategy should involve clandestine special operations, intelligence, diplomatic and other capabilities to target al Qaeda groups and their financial, logistical and political support networks. The U.S. should also help train, advise and assist local governments in their struggle against terrorism and to deal with its root causes, which may vary from incompetent security forces to collapsing economies.

A second category of terrorist groups – particularly in Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria – is bent on hitting U.S. and other Western targets overseas, though not necessarily in the U.S. homeland. Some of them, such as al-Shabaab in Somalia, have been on the radar screen of U.S. policy makers for years. Others, such as Boko Haram, are attracting more attention because of the growing pace of their attacks and plots against Americans overseas. In these countries the U.S. should support local governments but refrain from direct operations.

The third category includes terrorist groups with little current interest and ability to strike the U.S. or U.S. targets overseas. They include the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China and numerous others with parochial interests across Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The U.S. should employ an offshore approach that relies on allies and local governments to counter these groups while avoiding the deployment of U.S. forces for training or other purposes. The strategy would include utilizing offshore air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces rather than onshore combat power.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are still home to al Qaeda and allied groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban, that have killed Americans at home and overseas. Al Qaeda was born along the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier in the late 1980s, and it will not disappear just because U.S. forces leave.

The American departure from Afghanistan will most likely be a boost for insurgent and terrorist groups dedicated to overthrowing the Kabul government, establishing an extreme Islamic emirate, and allowing al Qaeda and other groups to establish a sanctuary. As in Iraq, the withdrawal of U.S. troops does not make the terrorism problem go away. Al Qaeda and other groups used the breathing space to expand their attacks and spread to neighboring countries like Syria.

After more than a decade of war in countries like Afghanistan, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But current trends suggest that the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.

Developing a long-term U.S. strategy to pursue those groups threatening the U.S. homeland and its interests overseas – including in Afghanistan and Pakistan – would be a good place to start.

Mr. Jones is associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp., and the author of the RAND report, "A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa'ida and Other Salafi-Jihadists," released on Wednesday.

The Associated Press
Top military officer: Bergdahl case not closed
— Jun. 3, 2014 6:46 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's top military officer said Tuesday the Army could still throw the book at Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the young soldier who walked away from his unit in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and into five years of captivity by the Taliban.
Charges are still a possibility, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Associated Press as criticism mounted in Congress about releasing five high-level Taliban detainees in exchange for Bergdahl. The Army might still pursue an investigation, Dempsey said, and those results could conceivably lead to desertion or other charges.
Congress began holding hearings and briefings into the deal that swapped Bergdahl for Taliban officials who had been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and several lawmakers said that President Barack Obama didn't notify them as a law governing the release of Guantanamo detainees requires. White House staff members called key members of Congress to apologize, but that didn't resolve the issue.
Since Dempsey issued a statement Saturday welcoming Bergdahl home, troops who served with the soldier have expressed anger and resentment that his freedom — from a captivity that they say he brought upon himself — may have cost comrades' lives. Troops sat in stony silence at Bagram Air Field when Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Bergdahl's release over the weekend.
"Today we have back in our ranks the only remaining captured soldier from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome home, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl," Dempsey said on Saturday.
However, Dempsey called the AP on Tuesday to note that charges were still a possibility, and he focused his thanks on the service members who searched fruitlessly for Bergdahl after he walked away, unarmed, on June 30, 2009.
"This was the last, best opportunity to free a United States soldier in captivity," Dempsey said. "My first instinct was gratitude for those who had searched for so long, and at risk for themselves. ... Done their duty in order to bring back a missing solider. For me, it was about living up to our ethos, which is to leave no soldier behind. And on that basis I was relieved to get Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl back in the ranks, and very happy for the men and women who had sacrificed to do so."
Dempsey said Bergdahl's next promotion to staff sergeant, which was to happen soon, is no longer automatic because the soldier is no longer missing in action and job performance is now taken into account.
Dempsey said he does not want to prejudge the outcome of any investigation or influence other commanders' decisions. But he noted that U.S. military leaders "have been accused of looking away from misconduct" and said no one should assume they would do so in this case.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. John McHugh later said that after Bergdahl recovers physically and is "reintegrated," the Army would "review the circumstances" of his case.
Some former soldiers who served with him were already passing judgment.
Joshua Cornelison, who was a medic in Bergdahl's platoon said he believes Bergdahl should be held accountable for walking away.
"After he actually left, the following morning we realized we have Bergdahl's weapon, we have Bergdahl's body armor, we have Bergdahl's sensitive equipment (but) we don't have Bowe Bergdahl," Cornelison said from Sacramento, California. At that point, Cornelison said, it occurred to him that Bergdahl was "that one guy that wanted to disappear, and now he's gotten his wish."
Evan Buetow, who was a sergeant in Bergdahl's platoon, said from Maple Valley, Washington, that Bergdahl should face trial for desertion, but he also said it was less clear that he should be blamed for the deaths of all soldiers killed during months of trying to find him. Buetow said he knew of at least one death on an intelligence-directed infantry patrol to a village in search of Bergdahl.
"Those soldiers who died on those missions, they would not have been where they were ... if Bergdahl had never walked away," he said. "At the same time I do believe it is somewhat unfair for people to say, 'It is Bergdahl's fault that these people are dead.' I think that's a little harsh."
The White House took a fourth straight day of heat for not giving Congress the required 30 days notice of a detainee release. Obama had issued a statement when he signed the law containing that requirement giving himself a loophole for certain circumstances under the executive powers clause of the Constitution.
Obama, at a news conference in Poland, defended the decision to move quickly on the exchange, saying without offering details that U.S. officials were concerned about Bergdahl's health. Bergdahl was reported to be in stable condition at a military hospital in Germany
"We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity," Obama said. He said the process of notifying Congress was "truncated because we wanted to make sure that we did not miss that window" of opportunity.
Obama also said the five Taliban officials' release was conditioned on assurances from officials in Qatar, where they will have to stay for one year, that they will track them and allow the U.S. to monitor them. Still, the president acknowledged the risk.
"We will be keeping eyes on them. Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely," Obama said. "That's been true of all the prisoners that were released from Guantanamo."
Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, expressed reservations.
"I am concerned about what was given in exchange and I am concerned about what precedents we set here for exchanges," he said. "I don't want the message to be, 'You can go ahead and capture Americans and use them to barter for others.'"
Senate Republicans bristled, too, about the lack of notification.
The Obama administration held two interagency briefings for House Speaker John Boehner and key Republican chairmen on Nov. 30, 2011, and Jan. 31, 2012, in which the possibility was raised of exchanging Bergdahl for the five Taliban detainees.
During those sessions, lawmakers raised concerns about ensuring the detainees did not return to the battlefield, the impact on the Afghan war and whether all efforts were being made to rescue Bergdahl. Members of Congress sent letters to the administration, but heard little in the subsequent months except assurances that they would be contacted if the chances of a swap became more credible.
Then word came on Saturday that the swap had occurred.
Boehner welcomed Bergdahl's release, but warned of a dangerous precedent for the treatment of U.S. troops.
"One of their greatest protections — knowing that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists — has been compromised," he said.
Military Times

Despite scandal, VA changes will be hard to enact
Jun. 3, 2014 - 04:01PM   |  

By Leo Shane III
Staff writer
Lawmakers from both parties want major changes in how the Veterans Affairs Department operates — and that will make it difficult to enact any changes at all.
Senate Democrats and Republicans this week are offering competing plans for VA reform, including making it easier to fire top department officials and cutting wait times for veterans in need of health care.
But they're also accusing each other of using veterans to score political points, instead of supporting meaningful change.
On Tuesday, a group of Senate Republicans unveiled their latest proposed departmental overhaul, which would ease rules for veterans seeing private-sector doctors instead of VA physicians, provide more accurate wait-time data in VA hospitals, and ease rules for firing top department officials.
"What we have right now is a system that isn't working," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "This bill … is about maintaining the VA and making it better."
The GOP measure would "sunset" after two years and is "very targeted" to address the immediate problems facing the department, according to Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.
The move comes two days before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reviews an update of the massive veterans omnibus bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., which would also make it easier to fire top VA officials (while granting additional appeals) and authorize the department to lease 27 new health facilities to help reduce patient wait times.
It also would provide advance appropriations to VA, extend comprehensive services for the most severely injured pre-9/11 veterans, provide in-state tuition for veterans at any private schools — and cost potentially billions of dollars over the next decade, a price tag that Senate Republicans have so far called unacceptable.
Sanders' measure failed to gain Republican support when it came to the Senate floor earlier this year, but both he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have pledged to renew their push in light of the recent VA scandals.
Last week, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki was forced to resign following weeks of criticism and internal reports showing wait times for medical appointments were being manipulated by administrators to cover up problems and, in some cases, earn them bigger bonuses.
On Monday, Reid blasted Senate Republicans for caring more about inflating the scandal than helping veterans, criticizing GOP opposition to the cost of Sanders' proposal.
"Certain Republican members of Congress are content to scapegoat the VA," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Even more disappointing is the fact that these same Republicans have, through their obstruction, deprived the VA of essential resources it needs to help veterans."
Republicans behind Tuesday's legislation bristled at that suggestion. Burr said the problem isn't finances — although the GOP bill would require no new funding — but instead finding immediate solutions to VA's problems.
Last month, House members from both parties overwhelmingly backed legislation giving the VA secretary broad authority to fire senior department officials. But instead of passing that stand-alone measure, Senate Democrats so far have opted to back Sanders' bill — with all of the other issues included.
Several house members also have proposed bills to allow veterans easier access to private doctors instead of VA physicians. The White House announced two weeks ago it would look for ways to expand use of existing authorities to get veterans waiting on VA into available private care.
Without naming names, Republicans behind the new measure said they believe their idea has bipartisan support, but also noted that they expect Senate leadership to block efforts to bring the measure to a full chamber vote.
The Hill

Interim VA secretary rolls up his sleeves on care
By Martin Matishak - 06/03/14 09:56 AM EDT
The interim head of the Veterans Affairs Department promised on Monday to root out the systemic fraud that has plagued the agency's nationwide healthcare system.
"VA's first priority is to get all veterans off waiting lists and into clinics while we address the underlying issues that have been impeding veteran's access to healthcare," VA acting Secretary Sloan Gibson said in a statement. "The president had made clear that this is his expectation."
Gibson took over after Eric Shinseki resigned on Friday, following a pair of reports that found widespread mismanagement throughout most of the VA medical care system, including, among other things, personnel employing various schemes to cover up how long veterans had to wait to see a doctor.
"Systemic problems in scheduling process have been exacerbated by leadership failures and ethical lapses," according to Gibson, who joined the VA three months ago as Shinseki's deputy. "I will use all available authority to swiftly and decisively address issues of willful misconduct or mismanagement."
He vowed to work with members of Congress, academia, public and private organizations, and "all other agencies and institutions that can help us move forward."
Congress is already working to give the next VA chief expanded powers, with the House passing a bill last month that would make it easier to fire the department's underperforming executives.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee recently outlined a new bill to overhaul the troubled agency. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has proposed a measure similar to the House version, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and a group of fellow Republicans are set to unveil another VA measure on Tuesday.
Military Times
Lawmaker wants vets to be able to seek private care without pre-approval
Jun. 3, 2014 - 12:39PM  

By Patricia Kime
Staff writer
A congresswoman who served in Iraq wants the Veterans Affairs Department to let veterans seek medical care from private physicians without needing approval from the VA first.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, one of two female combat veterans in Congress, wrote a letter to President Obama on Monday urging him to use his executive powers to order VA to pay for private care for vets unable to get an appointment at a VA facility.
While VA already has the ability to approve outside or "non-VA care," veterans must "undergo bureaucratic red tape" to get that authorization, leaving their "health and well-being in the hands of a broken system," according to Gabbard.
"This is a crisis, and as such, private medical care must be available to veterans without VA pre-approval," Gabbard wrote.
The Hawaii National Guard veteran's proposal is the latest of lawmaker initiatives intended to accelerate veterans' access to health treatment.
Several bills have been floated or are in the works, including one by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., that would direct VA to enter into contracts with private physicians to provide care, and another from House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., that would allow any veteran who could not be seen by VA within 30 days the option to go to a private doctor and bill VA.
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will introduce legislation this week proposing that veterans who cannot get timely appointments be allowed to go to community health centers, military hospitals or private physicians.
On Tuesday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina will introduce a bill that would allow veterans to seek care outside the VA system under certain conditions.
But Sanders' bill also would broaden access within VA, authorizing the department to lease 27 new health facilities as well as hire new doctors, nurses and other providers.
VA officials on May 27 released details of the department efforts to speed veterans' access to care. Under the initiative, VA began a departmentwide review of primary care clinics to determine staffing shortages, authorized extended hours and overtime for providers, and directed VA health facilities to increase use of non-VA care where the hospitals and clinics cannot meet demand.
The Veterans Health Administration serves 6.5 million veterans at more than 150 medical centers, 800 clinics and 300 vet centers. The system handles 230,000 appointments per day.
The VA has been under fire since April when a retired physician from the Phoenix VA sent letters to CNN and the Arizona Republic alleging that the facility's off-the-books wait list may have led to the deaths of at least 40 patients.
An investigation from the VA inspector general found at least 1,700 veterans seeking care from VA at Phoenix had been left off the official electronic wait list and veterans waited an average of 115 days for their first primary care appointment.
A VA inspector general official said May 21, however, that his office had reviewed 17 of the deaths at Phoenix and did not find evidence that the delays in care contributed to patient deaths.
In 2010, a senior VA official sent a memo to VA regional directors warning them to stop "gaming" the scheduling system, such as changing dates, fudging numbers and backdating appointments to align with VA central office goals.
In her letter to Obama, Gabbard asked that the stopgap measure be in place for at least a year or more.
"To make any veteran wait for medical care is not only an emergency, it is a travesty," Gabbard said.
__________________________________________________________


No comments:

Post a Comment