Posts Tagged ‘ obama ’

Bailing wire and bandages can’t save the veterans disability claims process, the Veterans Affairs Department’s chief technology officer said Thursday at a roundtable discussion about ways to cut the growing backlog of claims and improve accuracy. “In my judgment, it cannot be fixed,” said Peter Levin. “We need to build a new system, and that is exactly what we are going to do.” Levin’s comments came at a meeting organized by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee to toss around ideas for repairing a system that has a backlog of about 1.1 million claims awaiting decisions and an error rate of 17 percent to 25 percent, depending on who is counting. Rep. Bob Filner, D-Va., the committee chairman, described the system as an “insult to veterans” who wait an average of six months for a initial decision on benefits and can wait for years if the decision is appealed. “It looks like we are going backwards rather than forward,” Filner said. “No matter how much we raise the budget, no matter how many people we hire, the backlog seems to get bigger. People die before their claim is adjudicated. They lose their home. They lose their car.” Overhauling the disability claims process is the top priority of veterans groups and the Obama administration, but there is no agreement on exactly what to do. The short-term solution proposed by the administration is what VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has called the “brute force” option: hiring more people to process claims. But because fully training new workers takes two years or longer, and the total number of claims received by VA is increasing, hiring more people is not expected to improve the process for three to five years, said Dan Bertoni, director of disability issues for the Government Accountability Office. VA is working on a number of pilot projects that might lead to a new way to process claims, by reducing steps and moving to a fully electronic record system. But the system remains so complex that an easy fix is elusive — which is why Levin talked about starting over. Veterans group, however, are not ready to blow up the system and start over. In a joint letter dated March 17 to veterans’ committee members, major veterans groups say they are unaware of any “magic bullet” solution or alternative system to the current problems, but they support changes to the current system. They are pushing the idea of providing quick disability benefits — in 60 days or less — to veterans with disabilities that can be “easily or quickly resolved,” which would include those scientifically linked to military service, orthopedic conditions and hearing loss.

Read the original: VA system should start over, official says

Defense and service personnel officials continue to resist efforts by Congress to provide troops a bigger 2011 military raise, telling a House panel that they would rather see more money spent on quality-of-life programs for troops and their families than on boosting the 1.4 percent pay raise proposed by the Obama administration. Their comments came at a Wednesday hearing as Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel, asked the officials whether they would support lawmakers who wanted to bump the 2011 pay raise to 1.9 percent and continue an 11-year string of giving service members an increase that is slightly larger than the average raise in the private sector. Clifford Stanley, sworn in as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness four weeks ago, said his personal opinion is that “you cannot pay people enough.” But that said, military pay levels now meet or exceed comparable salaries in the private sector, making a bigger raise unnecessary, he said. Davis said she expects “some pushback” from armed services committee members, who already have written a bipartisan letter to the House Budget Committee asking for $340 million to cover the higher raise supported by the committee. “Nobody is going to turn down an increase in pay,” said Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, Army deputy chief of staff for personnel. But he said pay levels for the military are enough, especially given limited resourses. “We actually think we have a surplus in terms of pay,” he said. Rather than a bigger increase, Bostick said the Army would like to focus resources on quality-of-life programs and family issues. Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson, the chief of naval personnel, said surveys of sailors show they are “very satisfied” with pay. He agreed with Bostick that it would be better to spend money on other priorities. It is not clear whether the personnel chiefs’ testimony will sway the subcommittee, which is expected to start making decisions in May about pay and benefits increases for the 2011 defense budget.

See more here: Officials: Fund programs, not bigger raise

The top commander in Afghanistan is still on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and would take him alive if possible. But Gen. Stanley McChrystal, speaking with reporters by videoconference at the Pentagon on Wednesday, appeared to contradict what the Obama administration’s top lawyer said Tuesday.

See the rest here:
McChrystal Wants Bin Laden Alive

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that it remains the goal of U.S. troops to capture Osama bin Laden alive and “bring him to justice.” The comment by Gen. Stanley McChrystal to reporters was in contrast to remarks made a day earlier by Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder told Congress that the chances of capturing bin Laden alive were “infinitesimal” because he would probably be killed by U.S. forces or by one of his own fighters. Bin Laden’s whereabouts have longed vexed U.S. officials. But his elusive status has recently taken on new meaning as President Barack Obama pushes to try suspected terrorists in civilian courts instead of more secretive military tribunals. Congressional Republicans are pushing back by saying that bin Laden and others like him shouldn’t be given the same rights as U.S. citizens. Holder said in House testimony that terrorists wouldn’t be given any more rights than serial killers like Charles Manson. He also dismissed the example of bin Laden being given access to U.S. courts as a red herring in the debate. “Let’s deal with reality,” Holder said. “The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom.” When McChrystal was asked whether the U.S. had given up on capturing bin Laden alive, he said, “Wow, no.” If bin Laden enters Afghanistan, “we would certainly go after trying to capture him alive and bring him to justice,” McChrystal told Pentagon reporters from Kabul. “I think that is something that is understood by everyone,” he said.

View post:
McChrystal: Goal still to get bin Laden alive

Efforts to lay political and security groundwork in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar have already begun, even as the U.S.-led coalition continues efforts to pacify Marjah, the U.S. general leading the effort said Wednesday. Both goals are key to the Obama administration’s campaign to secure Afghanistan and establish credible governance. The campaign to remove the Taliban from Kandahar won’t take the form of last month’s D-day-style military movement into Marjah, to the east in neighboring Helmand province, but will be a gradual buildup that employs both military force and political maneuvers, said Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, during a satellite-linked meeting with Pentagon reporters. “What you are going to see in the months ahead — without giving too much detail — is a number of activities to shape the political relationships in and around Kandahar,” McChrystal said. “As you know, it’s a complex grouping of tribes and other relationships that define how power is shared in Kandahar.” This process has become “very damaged” in the past few years, McChrystal said. “So one of the things we’ll be doing … is working with political leaders to try to get an outcome that makes sense. That will then be supported by security operations — and that will, in some cases, be increased partnering inside the city with the Afghan National Police. We intend to put more forces in there to give better presence and better support to their internal security.” McChrystal said he has already increased coalition forces around Kandahar, and will “continue to increase Afghan National Security Forces and coalition forces in the months ahead.” The provincial capital has recently been struck by Taliban bomb attacks described as a “warning” to McChrystal, killing or wounding more than 90 civilians, the Associated Press reported. More trainers In congressional testimony this week, McChrystal acknowledged, as did Army Gen. David Petraeus, chief of U.S. Central Command, that more trainers are needed to help increase Afghan National Security Forces capabilities. “We have been very unequivocal back both to Washington, D.C., and of course, more appropriately, to NATO,” McChrystal said. The number of trainers in country has been increased “significantly,” he said, as have moves linking coalition and Afghan forces, all efforts to develop the Afghan force. But to produce quality trainees at the desired rate, he said, “we need additional trainers.” McChrystal said he was “pleased” with the progress made to date in Marjah. “But I would also say that we are just really still in the back end of the military phase of this, and that the longer-term phases … where we’ve got to establish credible Afghan governance … is a significant task in front of us.” McCrystal acknowledged full awareness of the July 11, 2011, date Obama has set for the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, but said, as have several U.S. officials, that “the scope and the rate” of withdrawal “will be based upon conditions.” He added his belief that enough trained and capable Afghan National Security Forces will be in place at that point to provide increasing security where they are stationed around the country.

Excerpt from: McChrystal lays out campaign for Kandahar

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is taking a go-slow approach on one of the touchiest and least discussed national security issues: whether to remove the last remaining Cold War-era U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. Some officials in Germany and other U.S. allies in Europe are advocating a withdrawal, citing President Obama’s call last year for a nuclear-free world. But the U.S. is putting off an early decision, preferring to consult within NATO, starting at a meeting of foreign ministers in April that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to attend, according to several Obama administration officials. The officials discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because details are secret, and the administration is in the midst of an internal review of the role and purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The estimated 200 weapons in Europe are a fraction of that total. Results of the review, originally due to Congress in December, have been delayed repeatedly and now aren’t expected before April. The study, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, is expected to call for a reduced role for nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy, as reflected in the substantial reductions being negotiated with Russia in a replacement for the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. That negotiation does not apply to the U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, which are categorized as “nonstrategic” because they are short-range bombs designed to be launched by fighter jets based in Europe — including by NATO members’ jets. Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said Feb. 23 that the review “will not make any decisions that preclude any option with respect to nuclear weapons and NATO.” The START negotiations aim to reduce U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear weapons, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles carried on submarines. Talks have bogged down for months. The White House said Obama on Saturday had an “encouraging” telephone conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about prospects for an early end to the arms negotiations. The bombs in Europe are a sensitive subject because they reflect a long-standing U.S. military and political commitment to the defense of its European allies, who have relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as an alternative to developing their own nuclear weapons. Washington has a similar commitment to Asian allies, including Japan and South Korea, but it has maintained that role with U.S.-based long-range nuclear weapons. Asia-based U.S. nuclear arms were withdrawn in the early 1990s by President George H.W. Bush. The U.S. government as a matter of policy will not confirm the location of U.S. nuclear weapons, but it is well known that the sites in Europe are in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey. The U.S. has had nuclear arms in Europe since the 1950s. Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, which advocates nuclear arms control, believes the administration is inclined to remove the nuclear weapons from Europe but wants to take a cautious approach. “The Obama administration came in with a strong pledge to mend ties with the allies, and so the last thing it wants to be seen to do is to make a decision over the heads of the allies,” he said in an interview Sunday. “The U.S. would move these weapons tomorrow if this were just its own decision.” One apparent impediment to an early withdrawal of the weapons is the view of newer members of NATO — those closer to Russia, such as the three Baltic states, which were former Soviet republics. They see the U.S. weapons as an important symbol of a NATO guarantee of their territorial integrity. Older NATO members see it differently. Five of them — Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway — in February called for consultations on the question of a U.S. nuclear withdrawal, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said this month that “a hot issue like our nuclear posture” will be on the agenda, beginning at the April foreign ministers meeting. The consultations are likely to last for months, possibly into 2011. Parliament members from several European NATO countries are circulating a letter to be sent to Obama stating that the elimination of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe is an urgent matter and should be addressed once the U.S. and Russia complete their START treaty. “It is the sincere wish of the majority of people in Europe that tactical nuclear weapons are withdrawn from Europe and eliminated,” the letter says, according to a copy published by the Global Security Institute, an international group that advocates nuclear disarmament. The traditional U.S. view of the nuclear bombs in Europe is that they are a pillar of NATO unity and that they link U.S. and NATO security. Even so, they are not targeted at any specific country and the aircraft used to launch them are not as ready for combat as in years past. An in-depth study of the issue by an expert panel assembled by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, made public one month before Obama took office, said that since 1995 the aircrafts’ ability to go into combat with the bombs “is now measured in months rather than minutes.” That study also revealed internal NATO divisions, saying that some senior U.S. officials at NATO’s military command headquarters in Mons, Belgium, do not support having U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. It quoted one unnamed U.S. general as saying that the weapons are not needed because the American role of deterring a nuclear attack on its allies can be performed with weapons outside Europe.

Follow this link: U.S. cautious on removing nukes from Europe

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday soundly rejected an effort by anti-war lawmakers to force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The outcome of the vote, 356-65 against the resolution, was never in doubt. But the 3 1/2 hours of debate did give those who oppose President Barack Obama’s war policies a platform to vent their frustrations. Opposing the resolution was easy for almost all Republicans, who have been solidly behind Obama’s decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan from 70,000 to 100,000. Only five Republicans supported the measure. It was a harder vote for some Democrats, particularly in an election year where opposing the war can be equated with opposing the troops. Several expressed discomfort with a war that has lasted 8 1/2 years and cost the nation more than 930 American lives and the treasury more than $200 billion, but said they were voting against the resolution because it was ill-timed and unrealistic. Among the ‘no’ voters was Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who gave an impassioned speech. The U.S. policy of needlessly sending troops into harm’s way was “shameful,” Kennedy said. He also lambasted the national media, calling their lack of attention to the loss of life in Afghanistan “despicable.” Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, authored the resolution that would have directed the president to remove all U.S. troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of its adoption. If the president deemed that deadline unsafe, he would have had until the end of the year to end U.S. military presence in the nation. Obama has said he wants to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan starting in July 2011. Kucinich based his resolution on the 1973 War Powers Act, passed during the Vietnam War era to require the president to obtain congressional approval when he sends troops to a conflict for more than 90 days. Congress authorized the use of military force to fight terrorists in 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, but Kucinich said both the Bush and Obama administrations had wrongfully used that authority as carte blanche to circumvent the role of Congress in sending Americans to war. “Unless this Congress acts to claim its constitutional responsibility, we will stay in Afghanistan for a very, very long time at great cost to our troops and to our national priorities,” Kucinich said. Republicans warned that a precipitous withdrawal would be a serious mistake, allowing the Taliban to regain power and assuring that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would again have a staging ground to launch attacks against the U.S. and the West. “In the case of Afghanistan, President Obama has demonstrated great responsibility and a sense of the national security interests of the United States,” said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. “He deserves our support.” In the middle were Democrats such as Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who voted against the resolution despite “profound reservations” about committing troops and vast resources to one of the world’s most corrupt nations. He said the debate was essential, “even though I don’t agree with the resolution that somehow we’re going to be able to pull the plug and be able to end this in 30 days or 30 weeks.”

Go here to read the rest: House rejects call for Afghanistan withdrawal

French President Nicolas Sarkozy will raise concerns that the U.S. Air Force’s $35 billion tanker contract is anticompetitive when he visits President Barack Obama later this month, a spokesman said Wednesday.

See the original post here:
Sarkozy to Take Tanker Fight to Obama

NOW ZAD, Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Robert Gates, aiming to show progress in the expanded war against insurgents in south Afghanistan, took a brief, heavily guarded walk Tuesday down a rutted street in this scruffy market town where the Taliban lobbed mortars at U.S. forces only weeks ago. Now Zad was the scene of first significant military push after President Barack Obama’s announcement in early December that he would add 30,000 troops atop 17,000 reinforcements he had already sent into the flagging war. With the additional firepower, Marines moved into Now Zad last December and quickly pushed out Taliban fighters who had seized the town four years ago and forced every civilian to flee. Families that had lived in Now Zad for generations fled their houses with laundry still on the lines, said the top U.S. officer in the district, Marine Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson. The current campaign in nearby Marjah and the coming fight in much larger Kandahar are patterned on Now Zad, including the effort to recruit support from tribal elders before the fighting starts. As in Marjah, the United States is helping to install rudimentary local government in Now Zad, and U.S. forces are trying to train Afghan security forces to shoulder the load. Now Zad actually tells a more significant story, Nicholson said. “I am thrilled about Marjah, but I am more thrilled about Now Zad,” Nicholson said. “This is the rebirth of a city that has been dead for four years.” On his brief tour of Now Zad with Nicholson, Gates stopped to speak to shopkeepers who are among about 2,500 people who have returned to the city, once Helmand province’s second-largest, with some 30,000 residents. “A few months ago this place was a ghost town, a no-go zone,” Gates told Marines at their small, heavily fortified outpost at the edge of town. “Now, as I saw for myself, stores are opening, people are returning.” Gates’ walk, with armed guards in front of and behind him and soldiers dressed for battle posted all along his short route, also showed the limitations of the U.S. and NATO military campaign. Gates acknowledged that the Taliban insurgency is entrenched in southern Afghanistan — where the movement was born and bred — and is unlikely to recede completely under military pressure. “In many respects, the Taliban are now part of the political fabric of Afghanistan,” he said. The street was nearly deserted as Gates walked. Only a handful of men stood or squatted outside the doors of the few shops along the main drag that appeared to be open. As is the custom in socially conservative districts of Afghanistan, no women showed themselves to the visitors. Nicholson said the place is usually busier, with 52 shops and a school now open, but that a “security bubble” was in place for Gates’ visit. Ironically, to demonstrate that the town is safe enough for Gates to visit, U.S. forces held at bay the very Afghan townspeople Marines fought to bring back. Gates paused before sagging tables holding tomatoes and oranges. At his feet was a large shallow bowl of eggs, their shells specked with mud. The shopkeeper told Gates he’d like to see more Marines in town. “Because of the Marines we can walk anywhere,” the man told Gates. “More Marines, then more Afghan troops,” Gates replied.

Go here to see the original: Gates visits Afghan town cleared by Marines

Despite plans to give the Veterans Affairs Department a 7 percent budget increase at a time when most federal spending is frozen, key congressional committees are pushing for even bigger veterans budgets. They just can’t agree on how much more to give. At the low end, Democrats on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee are recommending a $380 million increase in the $56.9 billion VA budget proposed by the Obama administration. At the high end, Republicans on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee are recommending a $2.6 billion increase. Democrats on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee fall in between, proposing a $571 million increase over the administration budget. Republicans on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee have not yet released their recommendations on the 2011 budget. The recommendations are being sent to the House and Senate budget committees, which are responsible for drawing up a 2011 federal budget guideline, known as a concurrent budget resolution, that sets spending levels for various federal agencies and revenue targets to be used in preparing tax-related legislation. The resolution, while not legally binding, is used as a guide as Congress works on annual agency budgets. It is unclear whether the budget committees will go along with the idea of giving an even bigger increase to VA, while other federal agencies would get no increase under the Obama administration plan after adjusting for inflation. In appealing for extra money, the veterans’ committees are saying that scrimping on care for combat veterans unwise given the sacrifices being made in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Caring for veterans is an ongoing cost of war,” Democrats on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee said in their March 4 recommendations to the House Budget Committee. “Our recommendations are for stronger funding to help disabled veterans train for new careers, provide support to family caregivers, and invest in medical and prosthetic research,” said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman.

Link: Lawmakers push for big VA budget increase