Monday, April 2, 2012

U.S. TREASURY DESIGNATES THREE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Treasury Department e-mail:
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced the designations of three senior officials of the Government of Syria – Syria’s Minister of Defense Dawood Rajiha, Syria’s Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army Munir Adanov and Syria’s Head of Presidential Security Zuhayr Shalish – pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13573.

The Syrian regime’s continued use of violence against its people has imposed a devastating toll on Syria. Through today’s action, the United States reinforces its commitment to stand with the Syrian people, and it also sends a strong message to the Syrian armed forces and all Syrian officials that the international community is bearing witness to the regime’s brutality.  The United States will continue to work with our partners around the world to ensure that the Syrian regime and its senior officials are held accountable for the continued repression in Syria.

“The U.S. and the international community will hold to account those who stand with the Asad regime as it trains the instruments of war against Syrian civilians. The time has long since passed for Syrian officials at all levels to turn their backs on this bloody regime,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen.

Signed by President Obama on May 18, 2011, E.O. 13573 targets those determined to be senior officials of the Government of Syria. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with any of the designees and any assets they may have subject to U.S. jurisdiction are frozen.
Designated Individuals:

Dawood Rajiha
Dawood Rajiha was appointed Minister of Defense on August 10, 2011 and was reportedly chosen for his loyalty to the Asad regime.

Munir Adanov
Munir Adanov has served as Syria’s Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army since at least July 2010 and has accompanied President Asad on several high-level official visits abroad. Adanov was sanctioned by the European Union in August 2011, for his direct involvement in “repression and violence against the civilian population in Syria.”

Zuhayr Shalish
As Syria’s Head of Presidential Security, Zuhayr Shalish has served as Bashar Asad’s personal bodyguard. In July 2011, Shalish, a relative of Bashar Asad, was sanctioned by the European Union for his involvement in “violence against demonstrators.”

Sunday, April 1, 2012

NASA, PARTNERS SOLICIT CREATIVE WASTE-MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS


The following excerpt is from the NASA website:
NASA, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the State 
Department and Nike today announced a challenge to identify 10 
game-changing innovations that could transform waste-management 
systems and practices. Waste management is important for planning 
long-duration human spaceflight missions to an asteroid, Mars or 
beyond. 

Humans living off the planet require waste solutions that mirror 
issues facing people on Earth. In the hostile environment of space, 
waste must be eliminated or transformed in the most efficient and 
cost-effective manner possible. The innovations, which will be 
presented at the LAUNCH: Beyond Waste forum, may lead to practical 
applications for astronauts as we send humans deeper into our solar 
system. 

The challenge will be open April 1-May 15 and will seek creative 
solutions to minimize waste or transform it into new products in 
space and on Earth. Forum partners will select 10 innovators to 
present their technology solutions at the LAUNCH: Beyond Waste forum, 
hosted by NASA July 20-22, at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
in Pasadena, Calif. 

NASA and the LAUNCH Council -- thought leaders representing a diverse 
and collaborative body of entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, 
government, media and business -- will participate in the forum and 
help guide these innovations forward. The selected LAUNCH innovators 
will receive networking and mentoring opportunities from influential 
business and government leaders, as well as portfolio presentations. 

Previous LAUNCH forums have focused on water, health and energy. These 
forums resulted in innovations, including technology that enables 
irrigation using brackish, saline and polluted water; a biodegradable 
needle that can deliver vaccines or medicine under the skin using a 
pressure device; a tiny holographic microscope attached to a cell 
phone that can detect parasites and bacteria in blood and water in 
remote locations; a handheld lab-in-a-box that diagnoses a variety of 
diseases in a matter of minutes; a modular, flexible smart-grid 
distribution technology to provide access to power for those in need; 
and a simple, affordable fuel cell that converts biomass directly to 
electricity. 

LAUNCH was created to identify, showcase and support innovative 
approaches to global sustainability challenges. LAUNCH searches for 
visionaries whose ideas, technologies or programs show great promise 
for making tangible impacts on society in the developed and 
developing worlds. 

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ON PIRACY OFF THE HORN OF AFRICA


The following excerpt is from a Department of State e-mail:
Piracy Off the Horn of Africa
Remarks Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Remarks to the Center for American Progress
Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
Thank you for inviting me here today. I want to thank the Center for American Progress [CAP] for having me here to speak on the important subject of piracy off the Horn of Africa. CAP is a tremendous leader in developing new ideas and in approaching issues in new ways. I come here before you today to talk about an issue that the Obama administration has also had to approach in new and innovative ways.

Despite the romantic notions surrounding piracy of previous centuries, modern day piracy represents a new and complex threat to the international community. While piracy at sea is certainly not a new problem, its modern re-incarnation has an impact of a different magnitude. Piracy off the coast of Somalia threatens one of the principal foundations of today’s modern interconnected global economic system – and that is freedom of navigation on the high seas. In a globalized world, the impact of piracy in one area of the world can cause a ripple effect greater in magnitude than ever before. We live in an era of complex, integrated, and on-demand global supply chains. People in countries around the world depend on secure and reliable shipping lanes for their food, their medicine, their energy, and consumer goods. By preying on commercial ships in one of the world’s most traversed shipping lanes, pirates off the Horn of Africa threaten more than just individual ships. They threaten a central artery of the global economy, and therefore global security and stability.

When the Obama administration came to office the problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia was snowballing out of control. In 2007 and 2008 pirate attacks began to escalate dramatically. A vicious and reinforcing cycle was forming. Motivated by escalating ransom payments – which grew into the millions of dollars – and a lack of other employment opportunities, more and more Somali men took to the waters. Piracy, as a result, went from a fairly ad hoc, disorganized endeavor to a highly developed transnational criminal enterprise. Flush with money, pirates were also able to improve their capabilities and expand their operations further and further away from shore.

To make matters worse, Somalia offered pirates near ideal conditions. Piracy is a prime example of the dangers and problems that can arise from the presence of ungoverned spaces in our globalized world. In places where pirates operate – through the coastal areas in Puntland and parts of central Somalia – the lack of governance and weak institutions provide them with a safe haven. Additionally, with more than two thousand miles of coast line and with the Gulf of Aden to its north, Somalia sits along one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. International seaborne trade traversing through the Suez Canal to get from the United States or Europe to Asia must also travel through the Gulf of Aden and therefore along Somalia’s coast. This high volume of trade means that there is virtually an endless supply of ships for Somali pirates to target.

Piracy emanating from Somalia therefore represented a perfect storm for the international community – a weak state in a strategically essential location that harbors a rapidly growing transnational criminal enterprise and which threatens a vital artery of the global economy. Action had to be taken.

While there seemed to be no limit to the growth of piracy, through the collective effort of the United States, the international community, and the private sector, we are now seeing signs of clear progress. The numbers clearly demonstrate this. In 2011, the number of successful pirate attacks fell by nearly half. As a result, there has been a significant drop in the numbers of ships and crew held hostage. In January 2011, pirates held 31 ships and 710 hostages. In early March of 2012 pirates held eight ships and 213 hostages – a roughly 70 percent decline. This is still way too many, but it is clear advances are being made.

Today, I want to talk to you about the U.S. response to Somali piracy and why I think our efforts, and the efforts of the international community and the private sector are having an impact. In combating piracy, the Obama administration has pursued a strategy that seeks to leverage all elements of U.S. power. We have developed and pursued an integrated multi-dimensional approach toward combating piracy that focuses on:
diplomatic engagement to spur collective international action;
expanding security on the high seas through the use of naval assets to defend private vessels and to disrupt pirate attacks;
preventing attacks by encouraging industry to take steps to protect itself;
deterring piracy through effective legal prosecution and incarceration;
and finally debilitating the networks that support piracy operations.
Let me now turn to talk about our diplomatic response. The international community has adopted innovative steps to address the problem of piracy. For our part, the United States has helped lead the international response and galvanize international action. As the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review concluded, “solving foreign policy problems today requires us to… bring countries and peoples together as only America can.” This is exactly what the United States has done when addressing the problem of piracy.

From the beginning, the United States has adopted a multilateral approach focused on addressing this issue as a shared challenge. Piracy affects the international community as a whole and can only be effectively addressed through broad, coordinated, and comprehensive international efforts. In January 2009, the United States helped establish the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia to both prompt action and coordinate the efforts to suppress Somali piracy. The Contact Group is based on a voluntary membership and was established concurrent with the UN Security Council’s passage of Resolution 1851. It now includes over 70 nations as well as international and maritime industry organizations, to help coordinate national and international counter-piracy policies and actions.

The Contact Group serves as an essential forum for interaction between states and regional and international organizations. A number of specialized working groups were established within the Contact Group to address a variety of subjects, including, naval coordination at sea, judicial and legal issues concerning captured pirates; and public diplomacy programs in Somalia to discourage piracy. Through these working groups, the Contact Group adopts a problem solving approach toward addressing piracy. While we don’t always agree on everything, we agree on a lot and this coordinated international engagement has spawned action. In this regard, the Contact Group helps synchronize the international efforts underway to prevent duplication and to maximize the impact of international efforts.

The issue of piracy has also become a significant component of our diplomatic engagement with countries. This is something we see at the State Department in our dealings with countries across the globe. When I engage in diplomatic talks with countries as varied as Indonesia and Brazil, piracy is on the agenda. It is a shared challenge that many countries have an interest in seeing addressed. The issue of piracy therefore has an ancillary diplomatic benefit, as it often proves to be a useful subject for us to discuss with countries with which we are looking to expand our security relationship.
Our response to piracy is an example of how we are seeking to lead in new ways, by reaching out to new actors, building new kinds of partnerships and coalitions. American diplomatic engagement and leadership on piracy has helped catalyze the action of others so that the burden of maintaining global stability is shared.

Now let me turn to talk about how we are increasing security at sea. As pirate attacks increased, the United States, NATO, the EU, and many other national navies took action.

The United States established Combined Task Force 151 – a multinational task force charged with conducting counter-piracy naval patrols in the region. It operates in the Gulf of Aden and off the eastern coast of Somalia, covering an area of over one million square miles. In addition, there are a number of coordinated multinational naval patrols off the Horn of Africa. NATO is engaging in Operation Ocean Shield, the European Union has Operation ATALANTA, and other national navies in the area conduct counter-piracy patrols as well. On any given day up to 30 vessels from as many as 20 nations are engaged in counter-piracy operations in the region, including countries new to these kinds of effort like China, India, and Japan. U.S. and international naval forces have thwarted pirate attacks in progress, engaged pirate skiffs, and successfully taken back hijacked ships during opposed boardings.

We have also sought to create a safe transit corridor for commercial shipping vessels. U.S. Naval Forces Central Command or NAVCENT has worked with partners to set up a nearly 500-mile long transit corridor through the Gulf of Aden. This transit zone is heavily patrolled by naval forces and used by some countries for convoy operations. The corridor has helped reduce the number of attacks within the transit zone but it also has had the unfortunate side effect of pushing pirate activities further out to sea.

This demonstrates how pirates are constantly adapting their tactics in response to international efforts. One example of this is their expanded use of mother-ships – which are themselves pirated ships with hostage crews aboard. These ships launch and re-supply groups of pirates who use smaller, faster boats for attacks. They can carry dozens of pirates and tow many skiffs for multiple simultaneous attacks. This has made pirates more difficult to interdict and more effective at operating during monsoon season, which previously restricted their activities. Mother-ships have extended the pirates’ reach far beyond the Somali Basin. Somali pirates now operate in a total sea space of approximately 2.5 million square nautical miles – an area equivalent to the size of the continental United States. Pirate activity has even extended as far as the waters off the coast of India. This increase makes it difficult for naval or law enforcement ships and other assets to reach the scene of a pirate attack quickly enough to disrupt an ongoing attack. There is just too much water to patrol.
But in the cat and mouse game that is modern day piracy, we have responded as well. Since discovering the use of mother-ships, international navies now seek to identify and interdict mother-ships when possible. These are very delicate engagements however. With hostages on board and with mother-ships sometimes capable of traveling thousands of miles, interdictions and contested boardings of mother-ships by international navies are at times not possible. Yet we are making progress in isolating these vessels when discovered and boarding when necessary.

An example of this occurred in January of this year, when the U.S. Navy rescued an Iranian fishing vessel that had been hijacked and was being used as a mother-ship. The mother-ship was discovered when its skiffs launched an attack on another commercial vessel travelling nearby. Under attack, the commercial vessel contacted the US Navy, which was able to respond in time, forcing the pirates to break off their attack and head back to their mother-ship. While the pirates thought that was the end of the engagement, U.S. forces were on their tail and tracked the pirate skiffs undetected back to the Iranian vessel. When U.S. warships approached, all 15 pirates surrendered and the Iranian crew held hostage aboard was freed. The pirates were arrested by U.S. forces and were transported to the Seychelles for prosecution. This case demonstrated our principled commitment to freedom of navigation no matter the country impacted.

The American public should also know that this administration will do everything it can to ensure the safety and security of American citizens threatened by pirates. The Obama administration has made clear that it will act aggressively to rescue and protect American citizens threatened by piracy and that it will act diligently against those who perpetuate these crimes. Just months into office, President Obama was confronted with the hostage taking of the American captain of the MAERSK Alabama. The President authorized the use of force to rescue the captured captain and after a long standoff, U.S. Navy Seals successfully freed the captain by force. And this year, just hours before the State of the Union address, President Obama ordered U.S. special forces to rescue an American and a Danish aid worker being held hostage on the ground in Somalia. The health of the American hostage Jessica Buchanan was deemed to be in jeopardy and President Obama ordered U.S. forces to attempt a rescue mission. This dangerous mission clearly demonstrated our resolve. If you attack or capture an American citizen, we will act vigilantly and aggressively to make sure you face justice.

Private Sector
Another integral part of the response to piracy has been the critical role played by the private sector in taking measures to prevent and deter attacks. Perhaps the most significant factor in the decline of successful pirate attacks has been the steps taken by commercial vessels to prevent and deter attacks from happening in the first place. We have found that the best defense against piracy is often simply vigilance on the part of the maritime industry.

In response to the growing threat, we worked with the shipping industry to expand and develop its implementation of industry-developed “best management practices” to prevent pirate boardings before they take place. These include practical measures, such as:
proceeding at full speed through high risk areas;
employing physical barriers such as razor wire;
posting additional look-out;
reporting positions to military authorities; and
mustering the crew inside a “citadel” or safe-room in the vessel when under attack.
These steps, when properly implemented, remain some of the most effective measures to protect against, and repel, pirate attacks. Recognizing the value of these measures, the U.S. government has required U.S.-flagged vessels sailing in designated high-risk waters to take additional security measures. Nevertheless, we remain troubled that there are still commercial ships travelling through pirate-infested waters that have yet to implement proper security measures. Approximately 20 percent of all ships off the Horn of Africa are not taking proper security precautions. Unsurprisingly, these account for the overwhelming number of successfully pirated ships.

However, we must also recognize that even when fully implemented best management practices do not guarantee security from pirates. As a result, we have also supported the maritime industry’s use of additional measures to enhance their security – such as having armed security teams on board. To date, not a single ship with Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel aboard has been pirated. Not one.

These teams serve as a potential game-changer in the effort to counter-piracy. While many expected these teams to be made up of undisciplined “cowboys” that would cause an increase in the violence at sea, from what we have seen so far this has not been the case. We have not seen cases of pitched battles at sea between pirates and armed security personnel. In fact, in most engagements, the situation ends as soon as pirates are aware an armed security team is on board. In most cases, as pirates approach a ship the armed security teams will use flares or loudspeakers to warn the pirates. If the pirates keep coming, they will fire warning shots. That is usually when the interaction ends. Pirates break off the attack and turn their skiffs around and wait for another less protected ship to come by. These teams therefore have served as an effective deterrent.

However, when a vessel is successfully hijacked our foremost concern is always about the safety of the crew, regardless of nationality. The U.S. government is acutely aware of the dilemma that ship owners face when ships and sailors are taken hostage. While the safety of the crew is critical, we must all acknowledge that submitting to pirate ransom demands only ensures that future crews will be taken hostage. The United States has a long tradition of opposing the payment of ransom, and we have worked diligently to discourage or minimize ransom payments. While some may consider this the cost of doing business, every ransom paid further institutionalizes the practice of hostage-taking for profit and promotes its expansion as a criminal enterprise. We strongly encourage flag States, shipowners and private parties involved in hostage crises to seek assistance from appropriate U.S. government sources in their crisis management procedures.

The enormous ransoms that are paid out make the kidnapping-for-ransom industry incredibly lucrative. The average ransom is now at $4.5 million per incident and has reached as much as $12 million. We also know that lucrative industries fight hard to stay in business. Indeed, despite the decline in successful attacks, the overall number of attempted attacks actually increased slightly in 2011 compared to 2010. In light of the pirates growing difficulties at sea, we have seen pirates shift to targeting hostages on land, such as with the captured American and Danish aid workers. Pirates’ ability to adapt means that the maritime industry and the international community must be constantly vigilant in assessing the effectiveness of self-protection measures.

Prosecution, Incarceration, and Pirate Networks
Now let me turn to another aspect of our response – our efforts to deter piracy through effective apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of pirates and their supporters and financiers. Today, over 1,000 pirates are in custody in 20 countries around the world, most are or will be convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
An important element of our counter-piracy approach involves renewed emphasis on enhancing the capacity of states – particularly those in the region – to prosecute and incarcerate suspected pirates. The United States is currently supporting efforts to:
increase prison capacity in Somalia;
develop a framework for prisoner transfers so convicted pirates serve their sentence back in their home country of Somalia;
and to establish a specialized piracy chamber in the national courts of one or more regional states.

We are seeing progress in this area. Last year a new maximum security prison opened in northern Somalia to hold convicted pirates. And just this past month the government of the Seychelles once again demonstrated its tremendous commitment to combating piracy by accepting the 15 pirates captured from the Iranian fishing vessel for prosecution.
Nevertheless, the capacity and willingness to prosecute and incarcerate pirates is limited. Countries in the region that might be able and otherwise willing to prosecute Somali pirates in their national courts often decline to do so because they do not want to take dozens of Somali pirates into their already overburdened prison systems. In this regard, we are in some ways a victim of our own success. We are apprehending more pirates at sea, leading to more crowded prisons. Expanding the capacity to prosecute and incarcerate pirates is a real challenge and is one that the international community, including the governments of flag states and ship owners, will have to work hard to address.

As piracy has evolved into an organized transnational criminal enterprise, it is increasingly clear that the arrest and prosecution of pirates captured at sea is insufficient on its own to meet our longer term counter-piracy goals. Most pirates captured at sea are often low-level operatives. The sad fact is that prosecution is often a limited deterrent for men lacking employment opportunities onshore and who are willing to embark hundreds of miles out to sea in nothing more than a small boat – exposed to the elements and often with limited fuel. Sometimes pirates fail to carry enough fuel to get back from a voyage, which forces them to take remarkable risks in attempting to hijack vessels. An untold number of pirates are lost at sea every year. Part of what makes piracy seem so intractable is that despite these dangers, the lack of other economic opportunities in coastal communities means there is no shortage of willing recruits for pirate organizers to choose from.

After an intensive review of our strategy last year, Secretary Clinton approved a series of recommendations which, taken together, constitute a new strategic approach. A focus on pirate networks is now at the heart of our strategy.

We are using all of the tools at our disposal in order to disrupt pirate networks and their financial flows. We are focused on identifying and apprehending the criminal conspirators who lead, manage, and finance the pirate enterprise, with the objective of bringing them to trial and disrupting pirate business processes. Often, the best way to attack organized crime is to follow the money. Pirate organizers receive income both from investors and ransom payments, and disburse a portion of the proceeds of ransoms back to these investors. Already, the United States has indicted and is prosecuting two alleged Somali pirate negotiators.

The Contact Group recently validated the importance of this approach and formed a new working group to assist in multilateral coordination to disrupt the pirate enterprise ashore. We are working to connect law enforcement communities, intelligence agencies, financial experts, and our international partners to promote information sharing and develop actionable information against pirate conspirators. This effort will include tracking pirate sources of financing and supplies, such as fuel, outboard motors, and weapons.

Situation on the Ground in Somalia
Lastly, the only long-term solution to piracy is the re-establishment of stability, responsive law enforcement, and adequate governance in Somalia. This will require concentrated and coordinated assistance to states in the region – including those parts of Somali society with which we can work – to build their capacity to deal with the social, legal, economic and operational challenges to governance, effective law enforcement and economic development. To that end, the United States continues to support the Djibouti Peace Process, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), and other regional authorities working toward these same goals. Last month Secretary Clinton attended the London Conference on Somalia, which the United Kingdom convened to galvanize high-level international support for Somalia’s political transition.

As the Secretary noted, Somalia is at a critical juncture, with less than five months left to complete the Roadmap to End the Transition. The United States and its partners are working to help the TFG and other Somali leaders seize this opportunity to make progress toward greater security and political stability. We also welcome the expansion of the troop level, mandate, and logistical support package for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). AMISOM has made impressive security gains over the past several months, and we believe this positive trend will continue and will provide additional space for political progress and humanitarian access.

However, acknowledging the difficult situation on shore does not preclude progress at sea. While there is no simple solution to modern-day piracy, we are making advances to address what was seemingly an intractable transnational problem. The effective and coordinated international response to piracy also provides an example of how – with U.S. leadership – the international community can respond to other transnational threats and challenges that emerge. The U.S. response to piracy is also a prime example of how we as a government can address new and emergent transnational challenges. Addressing these threats requires us to be flexible and innovative in how we respond. It also requires agencies across the U.S. government to work together so that we bring every tool that we have to bear – including our diplomatic, military, law enforcement, economic, and intelligence tools. There isn’t just one thing we can do, or just one policy we can implement, that will simply solve piracy. Reducing and mitigating the threat posed by piracy will be long, hard work. But it is clear that the multi-faceted nature of our response is having an impact. While pirates will continue to adapt and evolve, it is vital that we stay vigilant and continue our efforts – the security of the region and the global economy depend on it.
With that I will be glad to take your questions.



SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON ON SYRIA


The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department website:
Remarks at Press Availability
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Istanbul, Turkey
April 1, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon, everyone. Today, the international community sent a clear and unified message that we will increase pressure on the Assad regime in Syria and assistance to the opposition. Nearly a week has gone by since the regime pledged to implement Kofi Annan’s plan. But rather than pulling back, Assad’s troops have launched new assaults. Rather than allowing access for humanitarian aid, they have tightened their siege. And rather than beginning a political transition, the regime has crushed dozens of peaceful protests. We can only conclude that Assad has decided to add to his long list of broken promises.
So today, we called for an immediate end to the killing in Syria, and we urged the Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan to set a timetable for next steps. The world will not waiver. Assad must go. And the Syrian people must be free to choose their own path forward.

Today, I also detailed measures that the United States is taking, along with international partners, to ratchet up the pressure on the regime. We will be providing greater humanitarian relief to people in need, and we will support the opposition as it works toward an inclusive democratic transition that preserves the integrity and institutions of the Syrian state. What does that include? It includes additional sanctions on senior regime officials, a new accountability clearinghouse to train Syrian citizens to document atrocities and abuses and to identify perpetrators, and more than $12 million in new humanitarian aid, bringing our total to nearly 25 million.
But the United States is also going beyond humanitarian aid and providing support to the civilian opposition, including (inaudible) and connect to the outside world. And we are discussing with other nations how best to expand this support.

We heard today from the Syrian National Congress about their efforts to unite a wide range of opposition groups around a common vision for a free, democratic, and pluralist Syria that protects the rights and dignity of all citizens. This is a homegrown Syrian vision, and it reflects the values and priorities of the Syrian people. It is a roadmap for saving the state and its institutions from Assad’s death spiral. And it is worthy of support from the international community and from Syrians of every background.

Now, turning this vision into reality will not be easy. We know that. But despite the dangers, the next step has to be to translate it into a political action plan that will win support among all of Syria’s communities, that will help lead a national conversation about how to achieve the future that Syrians want and deserve. That’s how the opposition will build momentum, strip away Assad’s remaining support, and expose the regime’s hypocrisy. Today, the international community reaffirmed our commitment to hasten the day that peace and freedom can come to Syria. It cannot come fast enough, and we grieve for every lost life.

Kofi Annan has given us a plan to begin resolving this crisis. Bashar al-Assad has, so far, refused to honor his pledge. There is no more time for excuses or delays. This is a moment of truth. And the United States is committed to this effort. We think the communique coming out of the meeting today is a very important document, and we commend it to all of you. It represents a considerable advance forward by the international community as represented by the more than 80 nations that attended here today.

The United States is confident that the people of Syria will take control of their own destiny. That’s where we stand. There will be more to say from Kofi Annan in New York tomorrow, but I want to thank Prime Minister Erdogan and the foreign minister, my friend, and the people of Turkey, not only for hosting us, but for being such strong stalwarts in the fight on behalf of the Syrian people.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet both with the prime minister and the foreign minister. We not only discussed Syria; we discussed the full range of our other shared interests. And I commended Turkey’s leadership throughout this crisis and its generosity to the Syrians who have fled across the border seeking refuge from the violence. We also discussed Iran and the threat it poses to regional and global security, and I was encouraged to hear Turkey’s announcement that it will significantly reduce crude oil imports from Iran.
Before I take your questions, I’d like to say a few words about Burma. I’ve been following today’s parliamentary bi-elections with great interest. While the results have not yet been announced, the United States congratulates the people who participated, many for the first time, in the campaign and election process. We are committed to supporting these reform efforts. Going forward, it will be critical for authorities to continue working toward an electoral system that meets international standards, that includes transparency, and expeditiously addresses concerns about intimidation and irregularities.

It is too early to know what the progress of recent months means and whether it will be sustained. There are no guarantees about what lies ahead for the people of Burma. But after a day spent responding to a brutal dictator in Syria who would rather destroy his own country than let it move toward freedom, it is heartening to be reminded that even the most repressive regimes can reform and even the most closed societies can open. Our hope for the people of Burma is the same as our hope for the people of Syria and for all people – peace, freedom, justice, and the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential.
And with that, let me thank you and open the floor for questions.
MS. NULAND: (Inaudible) Andrea Mitchell of NBC.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, you said that there is no more time, that this is a moment of truth. How much time are you prepared to give Kofi Annan, given the fact that there seems to be a widespread belief here in Istanbul, among you and the other leaders, that Assad is playing this for time, ignoring this diplomacy, and making a mockery of it by continuing the brutality?
And what more does the Syrian National Council have to do to persuade you that they should actually be a recognized opposition group rather than just a group that is trying to reach out to others and be more inclusive?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, first, it’s been nearly a week since Assad made his promise to Kofi Annan. We will hear firsthand from former Secretary General Annan tomorrow. I don’t want to prejudge it. I want to hear for myself. He’s not only been to Damascus but also to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, other places, and has reached out and heard from a number of voices. But it is important – and he understands this, he’s an experienced negotiator – that there cannot be process for the sake of process. There has to be a timeline. And if Assad continues, as he has, to fail to end the violence, to institute a ceasefire, to withdraw his troops from the areas that he has been battering, to begin a political transition, to allow humanitarian aid in at least for two hours a day, then it’s unlikely he is going to ever agree, because it is a clear signal that he wants to wait to see whether he has totally suppressed the opposition.
I think he would be mistaken to believe that. My reading is that the opposition is gaining intensity, not losing it. So the timeline is not only for Kofi Annan’s negotiations, but it’s also for Assad, that eventually he has to recognize that he has lost legitimacy and he will not be able to avoid the kind of continuing efforts by the opposition to strike a blow for freedom. And he can either permit his country to descend into civil war, which would be dreadful for everyone, not only inside Syria but in the region, or he can make a different set of decisions. So we want to watch this. But with the announcements of the various actions taken today, I don’t see how those around Assad believe that they are moving away from pressure, because the pressure is actually intensifying.

MS. NULAND: Next –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, quickly on the SNC, I’ve been meeting with them for several months, starting in Geneva, in Tunis, again today in Istanbul. My high-level officials have been in daily contact, meeting with the SNC. I think that they are – as we heard today in their presentation – not only becoming better focused and better organized, but more broadly based, more inclusive.

I met with a young woman who had just escaped from Homs who was bearing witness to the horrible experience that she and others had endured in the siege of Homs, and you could not listen to her without being upset by the story that she had to tell. But the fact that she is part of the Syrian National Congress speaks volumes, because clearly those who could organize it at first were those free to do so, who were on the outside. Now as more people are leaving Syria, escaping to freedom, they are joining the SNC. So the variety and the base of the SNC is broadening, which gives it added legitimacy.

And of course, as you heard today, we are going to be supporting the SNC with direct assistance in areas such as communications. Others are going to be supporting fighters associated with the SNC. So countries are making their own decisions, but the net result is that the SNC is being treated as the umbrella organization representing the opposition, and we think that demonstrates a lot of hard work, not only by the Syrians themselves but by many of us who have been working with them over the last several months.
MS. NULAND: Next question, Hurriyet, (Inaudible).

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, we know that you had bilateral meetings with your Turkish counterpart Davutoglu and Prime Minister Erdogan today here in Istanbul. And we understand you also exchanged information on their recent visit to Tehran. Davutoglu – Foreign Minister Davutoglu in a public statement said that they take Khamenei’s statements as not developing nuclear weapons as a guarantee, this should be taken as a guarantee in Shia tradition. How do you perceive these kind of statements, and are you by any means close to taking them seriously and find them – finding them satisfactory? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I was very interested in what both the foreign minister and the prime minister told me about their visit. They had lengthy discussions with the supreme leader, the president, and other Iranian officials. They were told, as you just repeated, that the supreme leader viewed weapons of mass destruction as religiously prohibited, against Islam, and that he asked the Turkish leaders to really take that into account, take it seriously.

We, of course, would welcome that. Yet, I think it’s important that it be operationalized. That’s what the P-5+1 talks are about. We will be meeting with the Iranians to discuss how you translate what is a stated belief into a plan of action. And if the Iranians are truly committed to that statement of belief as conveyed to the prime minister and the foreign minister, then they should be open to reassuring the international community that it’s not an abstract belief but it is a government policy. And that government policy can be demonstrated in a number of ways, by ending the enrichment of highly enriched uranium to 20 percent, by shipping out such highly enriched uranium out of the country, by opening up to constant inspections and verifications.
So we are certainly open to believing that this is the position, but of course the international community now wants to see actions associated with that statement of belief. And we would welcome that.
But I think the Iranians also have to know that this is not an open-ended discussion. This has to be a very serious action-oriented negotiation, where both sides are highly engaged on a sustainable basis to reach a decision that can be translated into policy that is verified as soon as possible. So if the statement by the supreme leader to the prime minister and the foreign minister provides the context in which the discussions occur, that would be a good starting point.
MS. NULAND: Last question, Wall Street Journal, Jay Solomon.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, just on Iran again, did Prime Minister Erdogan provide any sort of concrete or did the Iranians through him pass on any concrete kind of agenda as for what the talks would be? And is there any thought of the talks broadening a bit to discuss – I know your concerns that the Iranians are helping the Assad regime crack down on the protestors inside Syria.

And just additionally, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood now says it is going to seek the presidency in the upcoming elections. Is this something you welcome? Is it a concern? Because it’s something that initially they said they were not going to seek. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jay, I was having a little bit of trouble hearing you, but I think your first question concerned Turkey’s actions regarding crude oil products from Iran. And we welcomed the announcement that one of the very large private refiners would be cutting their imports 20 percent. We will be consulting between Turkish and American experts as to how that can be operationalized, because it’s a complicated matter. The oil markets are complicated. Having a refinery make that change requires other supplies, and different refineries have different kinds of equipment that has to be taken into account. But we will be consulting with the – with Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, and then we will send a team of experts to follow up. But we certainly welcome that announcement.

With respect to the role that Iran is playing inside Syria, it’s deeply troubling. And I think it’s important to underscore that when I travel in the region – I was in Riyadh yesterday meeting with the Gulf countries, but it goes beyond that into a much broader regional, even global, context – there are three concerns that countries have about Iran.

The first, we’ve discussed, the pursuit of nuclear weapons, which would be incredibly destabilizing and it would intimidate and cause reactions of many kinds by countries that would feel threatened. Secondly, the interference by Iran in the internal affairs of its neighbors, and certainly the role that Iran seems to be playing inside Syria is an example of that. Sometimes it is done directly by Iran, sometimes by proxies for Iran. And thirdly, the export of terrorism. I mean, just think, in the last six, eight months we’ve had Iranian plots disrupted from Thailand to India to Georgia to Mexico and many places in between. This is a country, not a terrorist group. It’s a country, a great civilization. It’s an ancient culture. The people deserve better than to be living under a regime that exports terrorism.

So we are very conscious of the role they’re playing inside Iran; we’re conscious of the role they’re playing in other countries. And this will certainly be a matter for discussion, but our first priority is the nuclear program, because people ask me all the time what keeps me up at night. It’s nuclear weapons, it’s weapons of mass destruction that fall into the hands of irresponsible state actors or terrorist groups. So we have to deal with that, but it’s not only that which concerns the neighbors and others.

And finally, we’re going to watch what the political actors in Egypt do. We’re going to watch their commitment to the rights and the dignity of every Egyptian. We want to see Egypt move forward in a democratic transition. And what that means is that you do not and cannot discriminate against religious minorities, women, political opponents. There has to be a process, starting in an election, that lies down certain principles that will be followed by whoever wins the election. And that is what we hope for the Egyptian people. They’ve sacrificed a lot for their freedom and their democracy, so we will watch what all of the political actors do and hold them accountable for their actions. And we really hope the Egyptian people get what they demonstrated for in Tahrir Square, which is the kind of open, inclusive, pluralistic democracy that really respects the rights and dignity of every single Egyptian.
Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.





TROOPS DRAW STRENGTH FROM EACH OTHER


American Forces Press Service



War Hero: Troops Can Draw Strength From Each Other

By Elaine Sanchez
WASHINGTON, March 30, 2012 - Service members can draw strength from each other rather than attempt to deal with tough times alone, a highly decorated wounded warrior who triumphed over great adversity said here today.

Adversity "is not best dealt with by oneself; it's overcome by the help of others and hard work and the will to get through it," Army Sgt. 1st Class Leroy A. Petry, the Army's most recent Medal of Honor recipient, told an audience of nearly 750 behavioral health experts and military leaders.

Petry discussed his recovery and the people who helped pull him through during the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury's Warrior Resilience Conference. This conference, in its fourth year, is intended to equip service members, units, families and communities with resilience-building techniques and tools.

Petry was wounded May 26, 2008, during an operation to capture an insurgent leader in a compound in Afghanistan's Paktia province, near the Pakistan border. His unit was met with heavy automatic weapons fire when they moved into the area. He and several of his fellow soldiers were wounded and sought cover as an enemy lobbed a grenade at the unit.

Although wounded in both legs by assault-rifle fire, rather than turn away or seek cover, Petry picked up the grenade to throw it back at the enemy. Instead, the grenade detonated, amputating his right hand.
Still, Petry remained calm, put on his own tourniquet and continued to lead.
Last summer, President Barack Obama awarded the country's highest military honor to the Ranger. Petry became only the second living veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to receive the Medal of Honor.
Petry credits his ongoing recovery to the troops, medical personnel and family members around him. He recalled his first night in the hospital. A female soldier, part of an explosive ordnance disposal unit, visited him before even his family arrived. She had lost both of her arms above the elbow during deployment.
Still, "she had the greatest attitude," Petry said, recalling how she played ping-pong without arms.
"I was in awe," he said.

Petry said it was his friends, from all services, who inspired him and helped him through recovery. He joked about the services' competitiveness with each other, such as Army vs. Navy football, but "we come together collectively when needed."

Petry said it's common within wounded warrior units to find fiercely competitive troops. He recalled a story about a service member who topped another service's record in pull-ups.

"That's where you find resilience; it's in your fellow service member pushing you to bring out the best in you," he said. "We need that someone to confide in, that someone to push us, that someone to lean on and carry our backpack when times are tough."

Petry pointed out the difficulties experienced by troops with invisible wounds of war, such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. Society still doesn't understand these issues fully, he said.
The soldier recalled hanging out with his friends during his recovery. Seeing his visible wounds, civilians would approach Petry and thank him for his service and sacrifice, ignoring the soldier by his side whose wounds weren't so evident. Petry would stop the person and explain that the service member next to him deserves equal gratitude.

"Everyone is an equal when it comes to injuries," he said.
Petry said this lack of understanding exacts a toll on troops. His close friend, who he knew prior to both of their wounds, suffers from severe TBI and PTS. One night, Petry was having dinner with his family when he got a call. His friend was threatening to commit suicide.

"I dropped everything and ran out to his house," he recalled.
Petry talked with his friend and drove him to see a chaplain. His friend just needed someone to take the time to listen, he said.

"That's the kind of stuff we need to do sometimes for each other," he said.
Petry said people often tell him that they're impressed he's been on seven deployments. But he dismisses that acknowledgement. Some of his friends are on their 15th deployment and still going strong.
"These guys are motivating me," he said.

PENTAGON COMMITTED TO QUALITY CARE OF MILITARY PERSONNEL


The following excerpt is from a American Forces Press e-mail:



Pentagon's Top Doctor Stresses Commitment to Quality Care

By Elaine Sanchez
WASHINGTON, March 29, 2012 - Even in this "belt-tightening era," Defense Department officials remain committed to sustaining efforts that have led to groundbreaking medical advances in areas such as post-traumatic stress disorder, the Pentagon's top health affairs official told an audience of behavioral health experts and military leaders here today.

"The leadership of the military health system -- to include the surgeons general of the Army, Navy and Air Force -- have been steadfast that the core mission of medical readiness responsibilities cannot and will not be compromised," said Dr. Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs and director of the TRICARE Management Activity.

This includes the Pentagon's investment in medical research and development and in the nature of resilience, he added.

Woodson spoke at the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury's Warrior Resilience Conference, which is intended to provide service members, units, families and communities with resilience-building techniques and tools.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey have made it clear that the department will do its part in the reduction and growth of federal spending, Woodson said, and the health budget is not exempt.

Defense health programs encompass more than $53 billion of DOD's base budget of $525 billion, the doctor noted. "We really now are at 10 percent of the DOD's budget," he said. "We need to make sure those dollars spent are adding value to national defense and to the department."

Woodson warned against the impact of a possible "sequestration." Unless Congress agrees on an alternative by January, this provision of the Budget Control Act would trigger an additional $500 billion in across-the-board defense spending cuts over the next 10 years, which Woodson described as a "meat-ax" approach to cutting costs and programs. "We cannot let that happen, and we're not going to let that happen," he said.

Woodson said he's committed to protecting medical research and development programs, which have made great contributions to medical science. "It's easy in the short term, but painful in the long term to cut research and development budgets," he said. Instead, he explained, DOD needs to put in place a more "agile" structure that identifies best practices across the services and enables rapid information sharing.

This will save money that can be applied to programs such as research and development, he added.
But just having a program isn't enough, Woodson said. It must be effective and easily accessible. Nearly 400 programs designed to aid troops and their families are in place, he said, but there's a lack of metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

"My greatest fear with the meat-ax approach is they'll cut programs that are truly beneficial ... because we don't have a method of analysis that's robust," he said.

Woodson reiterated his commitment to ensuring troops and their families receive the best care possible. "I personally believe we are heading in the right direction on these organizational budgetary decisions," he said. "We will continue to provide exceptional service to all of those we serve."

The resources put forth to better understand how to prevent and treat psychological wounds are vital to service members and their families, who have been challenged as never before -- and vital to long-term national security interests, Woodson said. Nearly 11 years of war have "exacted a toll on service members and their families," he said.

Woodson stressed the importance of leadership and communication in building resilience. "The environment that a leader [creates] in his or her own unit, however small, has an enormously positive affect on resilience," he said.
This environment, he told the audience, should include the means for open communication. "That reaching out for help when feeling overwhelmed by life's stressors can help sustain or restore health," he said. "Seeking help is a sign of strength, and we need to ensure that those who serve know where to turn for help when it's required."
Woodson lauded the attendees for taking steps to understand the nature of resilience and to deepen their understanding of psychological issues. Their efforts will be increasingly important as the nation continues to face numerous and complicated" threats, he noted.

"No nation in history has ever put forward more resources, more research and more military leadership attention ... to help address and understand how to create and sustain a psychologically healthy force," Woodson said.
"The importance of your work and efforts ... is extraordinarily vital to people who serve," he added. "It's vital to extended families and the friends of men and women in uniform, and vital to long-term national security interests."
 

U.S. OFFICIALS WANT THE F-35 FIGHTER EVEN WITH INCREASED COSTS


American Forces Press Service



Officials Reaffirm Pentagon's Commitment to F-35

By Donna Miles and Karen Parrish
WASHINGTON, March 29, 2012 - Estimated costs for the F-35 joint strike fighter have increased over the life of the program, but the Defense Department is working to contain cost growth and remains committed to the fifth-generation fighter, defense officials said today.

Frank Kendall III said during confirmation testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that cost overruns for the stealth fighter are about $150 billion. Kendall is acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and if confirmed will assume that position officially.
"We are doing everything we can to drive down the cost of the joint strike fighter," Kendall told committee members.

He noted the program is still in testing, with about 20 percent of that process complete.
"We are finding design issues as we go through the test program that we have to correct," he acknowledged. "So there are some cost adjustments associated with that."

Kendall outlined the department's actions to rein in the program's price tag.
"We are attacking the production costs by putting strong incentives on the contractor to control costs, to get the changes that have to be made cut in quickly," he said. Concurrent engineering design is one issue that has raised costs, he told the panel. In that approach, which is intended to develop a finished product faster, a new system may simultaneously be in engineering, production and testing processes, he explained.
"Most programs start production before they have completely finished their developmental tests," he said. "The question is how much."

The joint strike fighter was an "extreme example" of concurrency, he said, pointing out that production was started more than a year before the first flight tests.

Lessons learned during the F-35's development are now being applied to other systems, Kendall said. "What we are doing now is setting up exit criteria so that we don't make that production commitment until we are confident that the design is reasonably stable," he added.

Kendall cautioned, however, that the joint tactical vehicle and ground combat vehicle could experience cost overruns.

Given the design complexity and the urgency common to new defense equipment requirements, "I am not confident that any defense program will not experience overruns," he said.
The department now sets targets early for programs, Kendall said, which should help to force the supplier and the customer to meet target cost caps by making any necessary tradeoffs between cost and capability.
Kendall said he and his team also are working to contain sustainment costs, "which are larger actually than the production costs." Those costs represent the greatest potential cost cuts, he said, and the department will continue to pursue those savings.

"I do think that the strike fighter is getting under control," he added.
Kendall signed an acquisition decision memorandum yesterday on the F-35, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today.

Little said in keeping with the Defense Department's better buying power initiative, which requires tracking affordability targets and costs associated with acquisition programs, the memorandum sets the current outlook for F-35 final per-unit costs in 2019, when the fifth-generation fighter is scheduled to reach full production.
In today's dollars, that cost is estimated at $81.4 million per aircraft, which when adjusted for inflation is estimated at $94.9 million in 2019 dollars, Little said.

Overall operating and support costs of the program are estimated at $1.1 trillion, up from last year's estimate of $1 trillion, the press secretary added.

Little noted some of that long-term increase comes from the department's decision, reflected in the 2013 defense budget request, to help in meeting requirements for short-term spending cuts by postponing purchase of some of the fighter aircraft.

"We remain fully committed to the F-35 program," Little said, echoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta's remarks March 27 during a visit to Canada's capital of Ottawa. "It's very important to our capabilities [and] to our alliances."

The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore are partners or participants in the aircraft's development program, and the Japanese government announced in December it will buy 42 of the fighters.

"We are taking steps to ensure that we maintain fiscal discipline inside the program," Little said. Panetta has said Kendall and the department's acquisition, technology and logistics team have done an outstanding job working to contain costs for the stealth fighter, he added.

"This is a fifth-generation fighter," Little noted. "It's important for a variety of reasons: to maintain the U.S. military's technological edge, to increase interoperability with our allies, and ... for a range of other purposes."

DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA BLAMES CONGRESS FOR FORCED CUTS IN MILITARY BUDGET


American Forces Press Service
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta answers a sailor's question on board the USS Peleliu in the Pacific Ocean, March 30, 2012. DOD photo by Erin Kirk-Cuomo

Panetta Blasts Congress for Failure to Avert Sequestration
By Donna Miles
WASHINGTON, March 31, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta blasted Congress yesterday for threatening the Defense Department with sequestration he said would be devastating to the force.

"Congress did a stupid thing," he told crewmembers of USS Peleliu during a shipboard visit off the Southern California coast. "What they essentially did was to put a gun to their heads and to the head of the country and basically say that if they did not come up with a plan to reduce the deficit, that this so-called sequester process would go into effect."
That process, the secretary explained, would cut $1.2 trillion in federal spending across the board -- almost $500 billion to come from the defense budget.

The cuts would be implemented across the board, he said, guaranteeing that the force would be hollowed out in the process. "It would guarantee that every area would be cut," Panetta said. "It would guarantee that it would weaken our defense system for the future."
Panetta expressed disappointment that a specially appointed congressional deficit-reduction committee hasn't been able to come up with solutions that will prevent sequestration from triggering in January 2013.

"I'm doing everything possible to tell Congress that it would be irresponsible to let that happen," he told the crew. "But my biggest concern is that Congress has got to find the strength, the courage and the will to get this done."

Panetta said he's pointed to the example of the U.S. military to encourage Congress to do the right thing.

"I told the members of Congress, 'Look, I've got men and women that put their heads, their lives on the line every day to protect this country. I'm just asking you to assume just a little bit of risk here to do what's right for this country and to solve the problems that we face,'" he told the group.

"'If my men in women can do this, then you can do it as well,'" Panetta said he told Congress. "So I'm hoping that ultimately they'll do what's right and that [sequestration] won't happen."

ARMY MEDIC MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN AFGHANISTAN


The photo and following excerpt are from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:
Army Sgt. Richard Davies sits on the bumper of an emergency vehicle at the Forward Operating Base Sharana medical treatment facility in Afghanistan's Paktika province. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Ken Scar
By Army Sgt. Ken Scar
7th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

PAKTIKA PROVINCE, Afghanistan, March 28, 2012 - Army Sgt. Richard Davies wanted to be an infantry sniper since he was 2 years old. It was a dream that stuck with him through the years as he grew up in Longview, Wash.

When he was 19, the Army came calling -- for his younger brother, Spencer.
"Richard was at home, being a 19-year-old, doing nothing," said his mom, Tammy Davies. "[An Army recruiter] called for our other son, Spencer. My husband had answered the phone and said, 'Spencer isn't here right now. Do you want to talk to Richard?'"
That serendipitous phone call was just the push Davies needed to jump into the life he'd always wanted.

But although they were proud of his decision to join the military, his parents pleaded with him not to go in as an infantry soldier.

"My parents talked me out of it at the last second. I was getting ready to join the infantry and they said, 'You're going to go to Iraq and get shot and come back with no education,'" Davies said. "So I fought to become a medic. I went to the recruiter's office and they said they didn't have a slot for that -- but they had plenty of infantry, tanker and forward observer positions. I said, 'OK, just take me home then.'"
Grinning mischievously, he finished the story. "Five minutes later, they said, 'Fine, we have your slot,'" he said.

But being an Army medic is not exactly a job that keeps a soldier out of the line of fire. As a member of Company C, 122nd Aviation Support Battalion, Task Force Blackhawk, Davies has seen the worst of war. Fit and chipper as a star high school quarterback, Davies has a natural exuberance that serves him well in the field.

"I'm out with somebody else every month," he said. "Doing supply routes, route clearances, finding [roadside bombs], helping to revamp aid stations at the little [combat outposts] I go to, working in combat support hospitals. Out where I've been going, we get mortared on almost all the missions. It gets crazy sometimes."

Nine months into his deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, he's seen his share of wounded troops, both U.S. and Afghan.

"He's treated a lot of [Afghan] counterparts for combat casualties," said Army Staff Sgt. Lucas White of Coffeyville, Kan., noncommissioned officer-in-charge of the Sharana medical treatment facility. "You have to be autonomous out here, and be able to make quick and competent decisions. Sergeant Davies performs very, very well."

"The first time you see a casualty, it's kind of rough," Davies said. "But I've been doing it for two years. I have no feeling towards the [blood and guts] any more. The soldiers are strong dudes. They're out there doing their job and get hit. It sucks. The more I can do for them, the better."

White said Davies always is willing to volunteer for the most arduous missions. "He's like a mountain man," he said. "Back home, he'd hike up into the mountains of Washington and stay there for days at a time. He's a hard charger. I hope more NCOs like him come into the Army."

Davies' mother said she wasn't really worried when her son joined the Army. "He has always been very independent," she said. "He once took off for three months and hitchhiked down to Montana, just to do it, and he was fine."
Davies takes great pride in his profession, she added. "Whenever he puts his uniforms on, his regular one or his Class A's, they have to be perfect before he'll go out."
With one deployment to Iraq and three-quarters of his current one behind him, Davies' co-workers marvel at how he perpetuates a positive attitude despite the unavoidably heart-wrenching nature of his job.

"He's a good morale-booster," said Army Spc. Eusebio Cordero, who hails from Bradley Beach, N.J., and is the patient administrator for the Sharana medical treatment facility. "Whenever he comes in, it's like 'Awesome, Sergeant Davies is here!'
"He's totally professional. He always has a smile on his face -- even when he's angry. It's weird," he added, laughing.

"He does tend to laugh a lot," Davies' mother confirmed. "He's always been that kind of person."

The best part of his job is saving lives, Davies said. "When you do that kind of stuff, you know you've [justified] your existence," he added. "You feel like you're doing something way above yourself."

He might get such a thrill from saving lives because he has such a knack for it.
While he's been part of a team of medics that has treated casualties who did not pull through, he said, he's never lost a patient he's had to work on alone.

The worst injury he's treated was to an Afghan soldier wounded on a foot patrol, he said. "He took shrapnel through both his legs, and in his face," Davies said. "He had brain damage. His eyes were staring off in different directions, but I patched him up as best as I could, and a few minutes later he got pupil response. He was talking in about 20 minutes."
Cordero said Davies is a great medic. "He's the guy to go to when you need something done," he added.

Davies said his time as an Army medic will be defined by the soldiers he's saved and also by making his 4-year-old daughter, Delilah, proud.

"I want her to know everything about me so she doesn't think I'm just making up stuff," he said. "People think we come over here and don't do anything, but we're still getting blown up and shot at."

Cordero said Davies is a good father. "He talks about [Delilah] a lot," he said. "If she could know one thing about her dad, I would tell her he saves lives -- he puts the Band-Aids on the boo-boos."


SEC POINTS OUT THREE CHANGES TO SHAREHOLDER VOTING RIGHTS IN 2012


The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
Voting in Annual Shareholder Meetings - What’s New in 2012
03/28/2012
Over the next few months, investors can expect to receive proxy materials for annual shareholder meetings or a related notice advising shareholders how they can access these materials. Shareholder voting typically takes place at the annual shareholder meeting, which most U.S. public companies hold each year between March and June.

There are three new or continuing developments this year:
Shareholder Proposals on Proxy Access. Shareholders may be asked to vote on shareholder proposals to establish procedures to include shareholder director nominations in company proxy materials.
Uninstructed Broker Votes. Restrictions have increased on the circumstances in which brokers may vote on behalf of clients who do not send in voting instructions. That means that brokers will be casting discretionary votes on a narrower range of items this year.

Say-on-pay Votes. Starting last year, most public companies were required to have advisory say-on-pay votes and to choose how often to hold such votes in the future. This year, shareholders will vote again to approve executive compensation at those companies that have chosen to hold annual advisory say-on-pay votes.

Shareholder Proposals on Proxy Access
Typically, the board of directors nominates board candidates, whose names appear in the company’s proxy materials for director elections. Shareholders do not have an automatic right to have their own director nominees included in these proxy materials. Where shareholders do have this ability, the names of director candidates nominated by qualified shareholders appear in the proxy materials alongside the names of the candidates nominated by the board of directors. This process gives shareholders direct access to the proxy materials for nominating directors and is often called “proxy access.”

This year, as a result of amendments to the shareholder proposal rule, eligible shareholders have the right to have proposals that call for the adoption of proxy access procedures included in company proxy materials. (Note that the right to submit shareholder proposals about proxy access procedures is different from the right to nominate director candidates.)Shareholder resolutions on proxy access may either be advisory or binding, and investors have filed both kinds this year. An advisory resolution approved by shareholders leaves the final decision to the company’s board of directors on whether to adopt a proxy access procedure. A binding resolution takes effect once it is approved by shareholders. (Depending on the company, approval may require more than a simple majority of votes.)
Court Decision on Proxy Access Rule

In August 2010, the SEC adopted a new rule that would have required companies to include eligible shareholders’ director nominees in company proxy materials in certain circumstances. The rule was contested in court, however, and in July 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down this rule.

Uninstructed Broker Votes
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) allows brokers to vote on certain items on behalf of their clients, if the broker has received no voting instructions from those clients within 10 days of the annual meeting. These votes are called uninstructed or discretionary broker votes. Brokers are only allowed to cast uninstructed broker votes on “routine” items, and the scope of routine items has narrowed over the years. This year, the NYSE announced that brokers may no longer cast uninstructed votes on certain corporate governance proposals. These include proposals to de-stagger the board of directors (so that all directors are elected annually), adopt majority voting in the election of directors, eliminate supermajority voting requirements, provide for the use of consents, provide rights to call a special meeting, and override certain types of anti-takeover provisions. Previously, the NYSE had permitted a broker to cast uninstructed votes on these proposals if they had the support of the company’s management.

Two other important restrictions on discretionary broker voting have been in effect since 2010. First, brokers can no longer cast uninstructed votes in the election of directors (except for certain mutual funds). Second, brokers are prohibited from voting uninstructed shares on executive compensation matters, including say-on-pay votes.

As the ability of brokers to vote uninstructed shares shrinks, the importance of shareholder voting grows. If shareholders do not vote, they cannot expect their broker to vote for them on an increasing range of issues.
Say-on-pay Votes

The say-on-pay rules took effect last year for most companies with two exceptions. First, smaller reporting companies have until 2013 to comply. The second exception concerns companies that borrowed money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and have not yet paid it back. TARP companies are required to hold annual say-on-pay votes until they pay back all the money they borrowed from the government, at which time they will become subject to the say-on-pay rules applicable to other companies.
The rules require three non-binding votes on executive compensation:
Say-on-pay Votes. Companies must provide their shareholders with an advisory vote on the compensation of the most highly compensated executives. The votes are non-binding, leaving final decisions on executive compensation to the company and its board of directors. Companies are now required to disclose whether and, if so, how their compensation policies and decisions have taken into account the results of their most recent say-on-pay vote. This disclosure generally appears in the compensation discussion and analysis section of the proxy statement. Shareholders can review this year’s proxy statements to find out how companies have responded to last year’s say-on-pay votes.

Frequency Votes. Companies also were required last year to provide their shareholders with an advisory vote on how often they would like to be presented with the say-on-pay votes—every year, every second year, or every third year. Like say-on-pay votes, frequency votes are non-binding. After each advisory vote on frequency, companies must disclose their decision as to how frequently they will hold advisory say-on-pay votes. Companies would typically provide this disclosure either in a Form 8-K or Form 10-Q, both of which are filed with the SEC. Many companies provide this information shortly after their annual meeting. These forms are publicly available on the Commission’s website
atwww.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm. Companies typically file several 8-Ks in a year. Look for those referring to Item 5.07.

Golden Parachute Arrangements. The term, “golden parachute” generally refers to compensation arrangements and understandings with top executive officers in connection with an acquisition, merger or similar transaction. When companies seek shareholder approval of a merger or acquisition, they are required to provide their shareholders with an advisory vote to approve, in the typical scenario, the disclosed golden parachute compensation arrangements between the target company and its own named executive officers or those of the acquiring company. The company is not required to conduct such a vote, however, if the golden parachute disclosures were included in executive compensation disclosures subject to a prior say-on-pay vote.

U.S. GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY VISITS COLOMBIAN TERRORISM SITE



Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey speaks to Colombian troops and engineers at Joint Task Force Vulcano near Tibu, Colombia. The general is visiting the country to reaffirm ties and to find better ways to partner with an important ally. DOD photo by Jim Garamone

The following excerpt is from the American Forces Press Service
Dempsey Visits Latest Site in Colombia's Terrorism Fight
By Jim Garamone
TIBU, Colombia, March 27, 2012 - The markets are all open in this small Colombian town. Some streets are cobbled, some are bricked, some once had macadam and others are just dirt.

Chickens run around in the backyards of houses facing the air strip, and a plane or helicopter landing there attracts curious on-lookers.

They had a lot to look at today as U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, joined virtually the entire Colombian defense leadership to visit Joint Task Force Vulcano, located just outside town.

The Colombian government established the task force in December. It is the latest effort to defeat the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – known by its Spanish acronym FARC – and other terror groups and criminal gangs.

"It draws all assets of the government together to provide security for the people," said Colombian army Capt. Jose Mojica, a spokesman for the task force.

Dempsey arrived at the base in a Colombian Air Force Mi-17 helicopter along with Colombian Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon Bueno and Gen. Alejandro Navas, commander of the Colombian Armed Forces.

Dempsey thanked the troops and police for their courage in facing groups that threaten not only their country, but the region and the hemisphere.

"I thank you for your courage and for the sacrifices you have suffered over these many years," the general said. "As the chief of our armed forces, I come here today to first of all say 'thank you,' and secondly, how much we admire your courage and democratic values. I commit to continuing to be a good partner with you in this conflict."

Following his comments, Dempsey discussed strategy with the minister and the chief of defense and also Army chief Maj. Gen. Sergio Mantilla Sanmiguel, Navy chief Vice Adm. Roberto Garcia Marquez and Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Tito Saul Pinilla-Pinilla.
Only a couple hundred soldiers were at the task force base. "We have little amount of people here, because the rest are in the field," Mojica said, adding that they patrol continuously.

The impoverished area is three kilometers from the Venezuela border, which U.S. officials, speaking on background, said is porous and suffers from corruption. The area is a prime shipping point for cocaine and the FARC and other terror groups use the proceeds to fuel their fight, they said.

If money stays in the village, it is well hidden. Whole families ride on small motorbikes with a father driving, mother on the back, and a small child wedged between them.
Before Joint Task Force Vulcano stood up, there were a small number of troops in the region. Now there are more than 10,000, Mojica said. The forces are composed of three mobile brigades and a geographic brigade. A fourth brigade is getting ready to deploy to the area.
This is all part of an ambitious Colombian strategy to cut the FARC by half in two years. U.S. Embassy officials said there are about 8,000 FARC members now. Colombian officials spoke of the plan as the end game for the rebellion against the government after 48 years of intermittent war.

The Colombian military is a leader in counterinsurgency strategy and have incorporated civil affairs efforts into almost every operation. Health care is a big draw, especially for the underserved people in the countryside. One of the first operations the task force set up was a health care program, including a health fair for the people of Tibu.

The FARC had warned towns people to stay away from the health effort, and task force commanders were worried the people would be too afraid to show up, Mojica said. But by 6 a.m., 250 people already were line, he said.

The FARC and their criminal allies are not taking the challenge lying down. The group attacked a police station outside Tibu just after Dempsey left the area. First reports indicated two police were dead and three were wounded.

HEAD OF U.S. CYBER COMMAND TOLD SENATE PRIVATE-SECTOR COOPERATION NEEDED


The following excerpt is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:



DOD Needs Industry's Help to Catch Cyber Attacks, Commander Says

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 27, 2012 - The Defense Department needs private-sector cooperation in reporting computer network attacks in real time to stop what has been the "greatest transfer of wealth in history" that U.S. companies lose to foreign hackers, the head of U.S. Cyber Command told a Senate committee today.
Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who also is the National Security Agency director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he supports legislation that would require private companies to report attacks, and added that such reporting needs to happen before an attack is complete.

"We need to see the attack," he said. "If we can't see the attack, we can't stop it. We have to have the ability to work with industry -- our partners -- so that when they are attacked, they can share that with us immediately."
Many cyber defense bills have stalled in Congress over concerns about privacy, overregulation and the military's role in cyber protection, Alexander and the senators noted.

The general compared the current situation, where DOD computers receive some 6 million threatening probes each day, to a missile being fired into U.S. airspace with no radars to see it. "Today, we're in the forensics mode," he said. "When an attack occurs, we're told about it after the fact."

Alexander added, though, that industry should be monitoring their own systems with help from Cyber Command and the Department of Homeland Security. "I do not believe we want the NSA or Cyber Command or the military in our networks, watching it," he said.

Alexander explained the federal partnership of U.S. cyber security as one in which Homeland Security leads in creating the infrastructure to protect U.S. interests, Cyber Command defends against attacks, FBI conducts criminal investigations, and the intelligence community gathers overseas information that could indicate attacks.
"Cyber is a team sport," he said. "It is increasingly critical to our national and economic security. ... The theft of intellectual property is astounding."

The Defense Department's request of $3.4 billion for Cyber Command in fiscal 2013 is one of the few areas of growth in the DOD budget, senators noted. The command has made progress toward its goals of making cyber space safer, maintaining freedom of movement there, and defending the vital interests of the United States and its allies, Alexander said. The command also is working toward paring down the department's 15,000 separate networks, he said.

Cyber threats from nations -- with the most originating in China -- and non-state actors is growing, Alexander said.

"It is increasingly likely, as we move forward, that any attack on the U.S. will include a cyber attack," he said. "These are threats the nation cannot ignore. What we see ... underscores the imperative to act now."

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed