‘Navy Interests Should Be Included in Future Leasing Discussions’

Published by Saipantribune.com on January 26, 2016

By Dennis B. Chan

A U.S. Department of the Navy spokesman re-echoed Friday their claim to military use rights at the Tinian port, but said they do need not see any current conflict between their these rights and leases granted by the Commonwealth Ports Authority to commercial development.

The Navy’s desire is that military interests are part of the future and existing planning for leases, according to Joint Region Marianas public affairs officer Tim Gorman in an email.

Gorman was responding to questions from Saipan Tribune on the extent of their rights at the Tinian port, after a letter from Department of the Navy lawyer John Aguon to CPA lawyer Robert Torres surfaced, in which the former notes the Navy’s concern that current and future development at the Tinian port—including Bridge Investment Group’s $120-million casino resort—“may compromise DoD’s various rights.”

Gorman said that while JRM has become aware that the CPA has recently leased certain real property at the Tinian port to a private enterprise, “JRM does not see any current conflict with any CPA lease.“

“JRM personnel communicate and work with their CNMI counterparts on a wide variety of issues on a regular basis,” Gorman said. “In this instance, as the United States has certain rights contained in long-standing agreements with CNMI, such as the 1983 lease (as amended), JRM merely communicated its desire to continue to collaboratively work with the appropriate CNMI offices to help ensure that applicable DoD interests are part of the planning process in existing and future leasing actions. JRM will continue to work with our CPA colleagues to have fruitful discussions, just as we have regular discussions with our CNMI counterparts on other topics,” added Gorman.

In his January letter to CPA, Aguon reminds of these “longstanding agreements between the CNMI and Defense” that “authorize and guarantee DoD various military uses at the Tinian port and airport.”

“We desire to ensure these DoD rights are protected,” Aguon said. His letter notes that that certain portions of the port are currently leased to Bridge Investment Group—an investor building a reported casino resort on the Tinian wharf—and that in the future, “other portions of the Tinian port may be physically or legally encumbered by either Bridge or other private entities.”

‘Webb Letter Gives False Hope on Military Realignment’

Monday, 24 October 2011 00:42 by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff

GUAM Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo last week said a recent letter sent by U.S. Senator Jim Webb to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta regarding the realignment of U.S. forces in Okinawa “gives false hope that the issue of realigning U.S. forces in Japan can be revisited.”

In addition, Bordallo said the letter is “unhelpful to Japan Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s efforts in trying to obtain consensus on these issues in Japan.”

In his letter, Webb urged Panetta to “re-examine carefully” alternatives to resolve the 15-year dispute surrounding U.S. military bases in Okinawa, stating the dispute is “the most serious defense and foreign policy issue facing our foremost ally in the Pacific.”

Last Friday, Panetta left for the Asia-Pacific region to attend meetings in Tokyo with Japanese government officials.

Webb wrote that the U.S. alliance with Japan “has long served as an absolutely crucial element in guaranteeing the stability of East Asia ... but despite well-intentioned efforts on both sides, there are credible concerns that the provisions of the 2006 agreement between our two national governments are not capable of a timely, cost-effective, politically agreeable and strategically viable implementation.”

Webb further wrote that the U.S.’ failure to resolve “the issue of American bases on Okinawa has resulted in a volatile political debate in Japan, the implications of which should not be underestimated by American leaders. It is in our national interest that this matter be resolved both quickly and smartly, for the well-being of our alliance and the stability of the region.”

Recommendations

Webb mentioned in his letter that five months ago, he, along with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, sent recommendations to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

“With regard to basing in Okinawa, we recommended that the Department examine the feasibility of moving U.S. Marine Corps aviation assets assigned at Futenma into Kadena Air Base, while dispersing a percentage of Air Force assets now at Kadena to other locations in the Pacific region, including Andersen Air Force Base in Guam,” wrote Webb.

Webb said his recommendations were based on many years “of careful consideration dating to my time in the Pacific as a military planner during the 1970s,” in addition to two visits to Okinawa and Guam during the past 20 months.

“I have also made three visits to Tokyo during that period, and have hosted numerous meetings with Japanese officials here in Washington. I believe this alternative for Futenma is the most workable, cost-effective and least intrusive approach to resolving the most serious defense and foreign policy issue facing our foremost ally in the Pacific region.”

Webb stated he was aware that resolving the Okinawa basing issue would require stiff political debate with different interest groups in the U.S. and in Japan. Webb wrote he was also aware that any change in the American basing structure threatens institutional "turf" areas within the U.S. military.

Webb added, “At the same time, Senator Levin and I were told repeatedly by officials at the highest level of DOD and the uniformed military that there are deep concerns regarding the affordability and workability of the 2006 Roadmap Agreement for basing on Okinawa and Guam, even though our two national governments seem unable to admit this publicly. Thus, my sole purpose in raising this matter with you is to encourage the formulation of a reasonable and timely solution that will guarantee a credible U.S. presence in this vital part of the world, well into the future. I would suggest that you seriously re-examine carefully the proposals that Senators Levin, McCain and I put forward last May.

I would also suggest that you look at the possibility of our military contingency plans including the option of sharing non-American aviation facilities on Okinawa, which were specifically called for in the 2006 Roadmap Agreement.”

Webb further wrote, “As you know, the Senate has expressed strong interest in these matters, as reflected in legislative provisions in both the Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the Fiscal Year 2012 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. I hope you will keep this in mind during your discussions with government officials in Japan.”

Air Force Official Visits Guam, But Snubs Leaders

THURSDAY, 08 SEPTEMBER 2011 01:43 BY JANELA BUHAIN | MARIANAS VARIETY

LOCAL leaders weren’t notified about a visit U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley made last month to Andersen Air Force Base for an Airmen’s Call.

Donley was touring the Pacific region to reconnect and thank Airmen serving in the area, according to an article posted on the USAF website. He was on Guam Aug. 29.

The apparent snub has caused frustration among local leaders, particularly Senator Judi Guthertz.

“We’ve repeatedly emphasized the need for harmonious relationships between the Guam civilian community and all branches of the military operating in Guam as the buildup and related work goes forward,” Guthertz said. “This insensitive handling of the visit by Secretary Donley doesn’t help matters.”

Guthertz said she was disappointed with the protocol and general handling of the visit, and hopes 36th Wing Commander Brig. Gen. John Doucette will reconsider the relationship between the base and the civilian community in light of this.

In the article, Donley was quoted as saying, “As the farthest western piece of sovereign territory in the U.S., Guam is critically important to the United States. This is a great wing, and it plays a very important role in this region, and for our nation and our Air Force.”

Apart from encouraging the men and women in uniform and applauding their efforts, Donley also spoke in-depth about the ongoing and future challenges the Air Force faces in light of the “expected reductions” in the Department of Defense budget.

Donley said: “We're in a time of great financial volatility and fiscal crisis at home. The need to get our fiscal 'house' in order has become a national priority. In the last couple of years, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen identified the national debt as the single biggest threat to our national security.”

According to the Air Force public affairs office, a response to Guthertz from Secretary Donley’s office is forthcoming.
Donley also reportedly visited Singapore and Australia in the following days.

Meanwhile, Guthertz, chairperson of the Committee on the Guam Military Buildup, questioned the leadership of the new Joint Guam Program Office director, Capt. Daniel Cuff, who replaced Col. John Jackson, (USMC Ret) in June. Guthertz has yet to meet the new director and wondered if policies have shifted in dealing with the Guam community.

“Director Cuff is most welcome to visit my office at any time to share views on the status of the buildup,” Guthertz added.

Buildup Master Plan May Change

WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2011 02:15 BY JANELA BUHAIN | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

ASSISTANT Secretary of the Navy Jackalyne Pfannenstiel confirmed to Senator Judi Guthertz that the Guam military buildup plan will likely be different than what is reflected in the 2010 Record of Decision.

Pfannenstiel was responding to Guthertz’s requests for a copy of the current draft plan for review, which, according to Guthertz, has been “circulating for months in Washington.”

According to a press release from Guthertz, the Navy had originally said the finalized plan would be released in early July, following a congressional mandate. The General Accounting Office has been given a draft of the master plan, Guthertz said.

However, Guthertz said that according to Pfannenstiel, changes may be made before the new document is finalized and released to the public, due to the budgetary climate in Congress.

Pfannenstiel said the Navy’s commitment to possessing less land after the buildup than before would “require further adjustments to land-use plans.”

“Although it may not reflect the current state of play and potential future adjustments, we are willing to discuss with you the draft [master plan] associated with the decisions memorialized in the [Record of Decision],” Pfannenstiel wrote.

In response, Guthertz said that “more than ever, we must engage the [Department of Defense] and other federal stakeholders on all buildup plans to ensure the best interests of the people of Guam are met. I welcome Secretary Pfannenstiel’s offer and hope to review the draft plan with her as soon as possible.”

Opportunity

“We view this as a continued opportunity to offer Guam’s input to a process that is too often closed until decisions are made,” Guthertz said. “We’ll keep pushing until we achieve that ‘win-win’ outcome for all the parties involved in the buildup.”

Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, publicly stated he wants to cancel the military buildup and close Department of Defense-funded schools.

Coburn presented his “Back in Black” plan to save $69.5 billion by reducing military spending overseas, including Guam.

Windfalls of War: Pentagon's No-Bid Contracts Triple in 10 Years of War

Published on Monday, August 29, 2011 by iWatchNews.org

Taxpayer is the loser when Pentagon doesn't require competition among contractors. "The lack of competition is a scandal," says one expert.

by Sharon Weinberger

As U.S. military deaths and injuries from roadside bombs escalated after the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon rushed to find solutions.

A U.S. Marine prepares for patrol in Marjah, Afghanistan, where a decade of war has meant billions in profits for defense contractors.Todd Pitman/APCompetition is normally the cornerstone of better prices and better products, but the urgency of dealing with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, has been cited to justify a number of sole-source contracts to companies promising quick solutions over a decade of war.

One such company was Tucson-based Applied Energetics , which markets a futuristic weapon that shoots beams of lightning to detonate roadside bombs. The company won over $50 million in military contracts for their lightning weapon, all without full and open competition, even though there was another company marketing similar technology. Despite test failures, the company, in part thanks to congressional support, continued to get funding.

In August, the Marine Corps, which was on the verge of awarding the company yet another sole-source contract for the lightning weapon, cancelled the latest $3 million deal after the commander of the unit in Afghanistan decided it didn’t meet their needs.

In the meantime, a competitor, called Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems , an Indiana-based firm with its own lightning-based counter-bomb technology, says it’s had good results with only a fraction of the federal funding that Applied Energetics has received—$1.5 million. The company is preparing to test its technology at a military range. “We did our own development based on state grants” and federal funds, says Pete Bitar, the head of the company. “I cashed out my 401(k).”

The bomb fighting contract is a small example of a problem that’s been exacerbated by 10 years of war: awarding contracts without competition. While the Pentagon says its overall level of competition has remained steady over the past 10 years, publicly available data shows that Defense Department dollars flowing into non-competitive contracts have almost tripled since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. According to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News, the data shows that the value of Pentagon contracts awarded without competition topped $140 billion in 2010, up from $50 billion in 2001.

And despite repeated pledges to reform the process, non-competitive contracts are a hard habit to break. According to federal data, the Pentagon’s competed contracts, based on dollar figures, fell to 55 percent in the first two quarters of 2011, a number lower than any point in the last 10 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

There are a number of legal loopholes that allow the Defense Department, as well as other federal agencies, to avoid competition and to select a single company to provide the desired goods and services. In some cases, there may be only one legitimate supplier of needed goods, or the government can argue that it has “an unusual and compelling urgency,” and that holding a competition would have a detrimental impact on government operations or national security.

But those exceptions have become increasingly abused, according to numerous studies. In fact, an analysis of over a dozen government reports and investigations, and interviews with eight former government officials and experts, found a number of concerns about DOD competition practices — attributable in large part to the past 10 years of war. Those include:

• The use of large umbrella contracts to purchase goods and services that could be competed individually, thus resulting in lower price;
• Justifying sole source contracts by citing an “urgent and compelling need,” when in fact the urgency stemmed from the agency’s lack of planning for requirements that have been known for years.
• Extending large contracts as a “bridge,” rather than re-competing them.
• An overall failure to utilize competition in cases that could result in cost savings and better performance.

These alarming trends have not gone unnoticed. Sole-source and other noncompetitive contracting practices at the Pentagon have been the subject of numerous investigations by the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department’s Inspector General, and the Commission on Wartime Contracting, among other government watchdogs.

The consequence, according to those investigative agencies and commissions: wasted dollars, lower quality goods and services, and in some cases, outright fraud.

Reports of limited and no-bid contracting, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, captured headlines in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, when companies like Custer Battles, later convicted of fraud , were given sole-source security contracts for security and reconstruction, including one worth $16.5 million to provide security at Baghdad International Airport. Among the accusations eventually levied against the company, which had no prior track record, was that it charged grossly inflated prices, in part by using fictitious companies to “lease” equipment to the government.

In his 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama railed against such contracts, accusing them of wasting taxpayer dollars, and promised to rein in such spending.

In 2009, President Obama followed up those campaign promises with a memo directing a broad overhaul of government contracting, including limits to sole-source and non-competitive contracting. “Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts (or contracts with a limited number of sources) and cost-reimbursement contracts creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer,” the president wrote in the 2009 memorandum , citing reports by multiple government agencies. Moving back to full and open competition, the memo continued, could save the government billions of dollars. But in two-and-half years, the Obama administration has made no progress in competing military contracts.

Even the Pentagon’s senior leadership has acknowledged the problem: a 2010 memo by Undersecretary Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s senior procurement official, called for greater competition, along the lines of the earlier Obama memo, and promised the Pentagon would make its contracting process more open to competitive bidding. “Maximize the use of multiple-source, continuously competitive contracts,” a briefing accompanying the memo states.

However, campaign pledges and memos have made little headway in combating the problem. “The lack of competition in the Defense Department is a scandal,” said Charles Tiefer , a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a member of the congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ultimate question is whether non-competitive contracts are due to trends beyond the Pentagon’s control, such as the lack of qualified competitors and the urgency of wartime contracting, or whether they are the result of poor policies and procedures. The Pentagon maintains that its competition rates are lower because of the nature of the things it buys: large weapons and major systems that then have large follow-on contracts that must, by their nature, go to the original supplier. “These high-dollar non-competitive procurements significantly impact the Department's overall level of competition to produce the 61.7 percent competition rate for FY2010,” says Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The GAO, in multiple decisions, has said that “failure to plan” for a procurement that results in an urgent need does not constitute a basis for a sole source competition, and has, on a number of occasions, sided with protesting companies that argue the only urgency was an agency’s failure to conduct a timely competitive procurement.

One report commissioned by the Pentagon’s Office of Industrial Policy and conducted by the federally-funded Institute for Defense Analyses appears to suggest it’s a systemic problem. “We found that the use of short-term contracts and modifications to fill the gap in services between the end of one contract and the beginning of the next is a significant source of sole source contracts,” the report concluded.

The study, which looked specifically at contracts for services, found that there wasn’t a lack of qualified companies; rather, nearly a quarter of the sole-source awards were justified based on “bridge contracts” that extended existing contracts without competition. “For sole source contracts there does appear to be a problem, not with the industrial base or with competition, but with DOD practices and policies,” the report concluded.

Noncompetitive, sole-source contracts are by no means unique to the Pentagon. Other agencies have been accused of giving short shrift to competition, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which awarded over half of its immediate post-Hurricane Katrina contracts without full competition, according to one congressional report. But based on total dollars, the Pentagon, according to publicly available data analyzed by iWatch News, lags behind all other major departments in competitive contracting. The Pentagon's competition rate of about 61 percent places it will below other agencies. The State Department in 2010 competed almost 75 percent of its contract dollars, the Department of Homeland Security competed almost 77 percent, and the Energy Department competed 94 percent.

Nevertheless, sole source contracts, ranging from training to equipment, continue to be handed out on a near daily basis, often with little explanation beyond a stated “urgent requirement.” On July 18 of this year, DRS Technical Services of Herndon, Va., received a contract worth nearly $20 million for training and mentoring Afghan police.It was the only bid solicited for the contract, according to the Pentagon.

A spokesperson for Army Contracting Command said the sole source contract, which was actually for fielding communications equipment to Afghan police, was due to an “urgent requirement that necessitated an award to the incumbent DRS pending competition.” That same contract was also the subject of a 2009 DOD Inspector General investigation, which criticized the contractor’s and the Army’s inventory controls.

© 2011 Center for Public Integrity

Marshal Islanders Worried About Hypersonic Jet Debris

August 16, 2011 by kyle from dmzhawaii.org

Last week, the U.S. military “lost” one of its Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicles over the Pacific Ocean. Radio Australia featured an interview with Giff Johnson, journalist in the Marshall Islands about the increased level of missile activity over the Pacific, the secrecy and threat of aborted launches to inhabited islands, and the contamination risk of depleted uranium and other toxins in the missiles. Here is a link to the audio file of the interview. Below is the transcript of the interview:

SOURCE: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201108/s3295273.htm

Marshall Islanders worried about hypersonic jet debris

Updated August 17, 2011 09:17:31

We’ve all heard it – “faster than a speeding bullett” – well that concept has now gone beyond superman and comic book/tv fiction to reality.

The US has experimented with an aircraft – Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 – at its top speed it could travel the 17,000 kilometres between London and Sydney in about 49 minutes. Last week the glider went out of control and came down somewhere in the vicinity of Marshall Islands where a Minuteman missile warhead blew it up on re-entry over Marshall Islands. It raises many safety issues for Marshall Islands.

Presenter: Geraldine Coutts
Speaker: Giff Johnson, Marshall Islands correspondent

JOHNSON: People in the Marshall Islands know very little other than what is publicly released by the Defence Department on these aborted tests and interestingly on the Minuteman missile re-entry vehicle. It’s a dummy warhead that they target on Kwajalein Atoll on the Marshall Islands. It said that it was blown up northeast of Kwajalein Atoll. Well the interesting thing if you look at a map northeast of Kwajalein Atoll, there’s a bunch of inhabited islands, so we haven’t heard anything more the defence department, people are asking questions, but it’s a concern as people start to hear about more of these missions being aborted near the Marshall Islands.

COUTTS: Was it actually launched from Kwajalein or Johnson?

JOHNSON: No, these shots are launched from Vandenberg air force base, in California and they’re targeted on Kwajalein, in the Marshall Islands and Kwajalein is a major missile testing facility. These are not missile tests that involve intercepts. The Minuteman was just a test of the Minuteman re-entry vehicle to see if it was working and the glider, of course, is this hypersonic glider is a new weapon system that they’re developing. So they’re targeted out here and sometimes there are launches from Kwajalein trying to intercept incoming missiles.

COUTTS: Alright. Well the safety issues, there are a number of them. How do you see that?

JOHNSON: Well, we need to get more information from these US defence department agencies and if they’re acknowledging that re-entry vehicles are being destroyed within minutes of splashdown in the Marshall Islands and in the vicinity of inhabited islands. It doesn’t do much for peoples confidence to have no information about what’s going on and there’s very little released publicly by the air force or in this case, the Hypersonic glider from Darpa, the defence department research agency. So yeah, the Kwajalein elected senators in the parliament here are raising concern about what islands are in the hazard zone and obviously anything that’s targeted on Kwajalein is coming across inhabited islands and, of course, Kwajalein is inhabited too, not only by Marshall Islanders, but by Americans and so there’s just a lot of questions about where this debris is going. And then with the glider, it stopped communicating with home-base, so as far as we know, nobody knows where it went.

COUTTS: Now, someone, even though it’s moving so fast, you’re not likely to see it, but someone along the coastline is going to see something. So no one’s picked up a piece of debris from it?

JOHNSON: Not as far as I know, but there are people who live on very remote islands with very little technology for communicating and so it’s possible that people could see something and not even know that there was a test happening and we’ve got islands that don’t have telephones, don’t have internet, and don’t even have a radio communication. So people could see something and just not know what it is.

COUTTS: So the whole thing is treated by the military with utmost secrecy, so the civilian contingency get no information whatsoever?

JOHNSON: Well, the defence department releases a statement before and after each test and they acknowledge when it’s successful or when it’s been aborted and they give a few details. But the details in terms of the population in the Marshall Islands, where the whole point of why these missiles are targeted out here is two fold. One is it’s four thousand miles, so it gives them a good flight test from California for a long range missile re-entry vehicle, but also face it, there aren’t very many people out here and the Americans wouldn’t feel too happy if these missiles were targeted on California, so that’s part of the reason they’re doing it, just like the Bikini tests in the 40s and the 50s. There just weren’t very many people out here and the problem though the 60,000 or 50,000 people who are here would probably like to get a little more information about where these bits and pieces are being blown up.

COUTTS: How often would tests like this be conducted?

JOHNSON: There’s been quite a bit of activity at Kwajalein in the last few months. They’ve already had a couple of missile test missions and then this hypersonic glider and in a brief conversation I had with the missile range commander a couple of weeks ago. He said this upcoming year is going to be quite busy. So I think normally, maybe a test every quarter something like that, may be three or four a year. But it seems like they’ve been more this year and the pace has been stepped up at Kwajalein.

COUTTS: Did the commander actually explain to you why it will be busy next year?

JOHNSON: I don’t have details on that, but I do know that what’s been going on with the missile range is that after installation of an underwater fibre optic cable to Kwajalein, the army has been able to remote much of its command and control work on the missile testing to Huntsville, Alabama, and so it’s a lot less expensive for people to run tests missions, because they don’t have to send everybody out to Kwajalein now. They can just sit in the control room in the US and have real time data on all the missile tests and this is a big selling point for getting customers to use the ranges that the cost is reduced. So presumably that has something to do with it.

COUTTS: Well, with testing like the Falcon Hypersonic technology vehicle to the glider that’s capable of moving 17,000 kilometres in about 49 minutes and all the other tests that you’re talking about, presumably a lot of it are nuclear powered. Is there any sort of discussion about what’s happening with the environment, are you noticing the marine environment at all, having any impact on it?

JOHNSON: These are not nuclear powered, but the re-entry vehicles contain what’s known as depleted uranium in order to make them simulate a real nuclear warhead for the purpose of missile defence and radar telemetry discrimination, because the whole issue of missile defence is can they pick a real warhead out of all the junk that an enemy would presumably throw up to confuse the radar. So yes, depleted uranium is in the re-entry vehicles, they land, they hit, explode into the lagoon or into the ocean. I mean there must be some contamination, but there’s never that I’m aware of been any published studies about contamination, although I know that Kwajalein senators have raised the environmental issue from time to time about the depleted uranium and what hazard it causes, but as far as I know, the army has always maintained that there’s no threat from it.

The Military's Rape and Sexual Assault Epidemic

Published on Friday, April 1, 2011 by RH Reality Check

by Antoinette Bonsignore

On February 15, 2011, fifteen female and two male military veterans filed a class action lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and current Defense Secretary Robert Gates. A second round of plaintiffs will likely be announced in early April. These veterans have charged the defendants with the wholesale and systematic failure to protect service members from being oftentimes repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted while serving in the military; and with a failure to investigate and subsequently prosecute and punish perpetrators.

The complaint reads like a horror story. One gruesome account after another detailing brutal assaults; sometimes repeated and sometimes committed by multiple perpetrators. Rapes and sexual assaults that are ignored and if not ignored so callously prosecuted within the Military Code of Justice as to suggest that rape is nothing more than a minor infraction deserving of little punishment, if any. A system set up to hide evidence, encourage victims to recant, and when the victim tries to receive some semblance of justice they are generally rewarded with demotions, harassment, and shockingly further rapes and sexual assaults as punishment. Victims are warned to stay quiet or face dire consequences. The brave victims are blamed – the women in particular were just asking for it.

One victim in the lawsuit recounted being gang raped; the perpetrators videotaped the rape and then circulated it among other soldiers. When the victim reported the rape to her superior officer, who then viewed the video recording, he told her bluntly that he did not believe she was raped because she “did not act like a rape victim” and “did not struggle enough” in the video. This same victim was seriously injured and covered in severe bruises after the assault --- particularly from her shoulders to her elbows from being held down during the repeated rapes.

Another victim was threatened with a court martial if she continued to “lie” about being raped by her superior officer. Because she deigned to report the rape, as well as the months of sexual harassment and physical abuse she had endured prior to the actual rape, her identity was revealed to others on the military base by her commanding officers. She was subjected to harassment from other soldiers who spit on her, called her names, and one commanding officer said “let her burn” because “she ruins careers.”

Yet another victim that reported her rape to the military chaplain was told that “it must have been God’s will for her to be raped” and he then suggested that she needed to go to church more. Still another victim who was raped in 2007 was later murdered and then buried in a shallow fire pit six months after reporting the rape.

The ramshackle investigatory apparatus and reporting system in place is staffed with military personnel who are often completely unqualified to investigate these crimes. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) token attempt to address the epidemic by creating the very limited and still underfunded “…Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which distributes posters, collects data, but has no enforcement or investigative authority…” has been a constant reminder of how the military thumbs its nose at any attempts to implement genuine reform. In fact, the director of SAPRO, Dr. Kaye Whitley, has absolutely no experience or training dealing with sexual violence. Greg Jacob, the Policy Director for the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), said that Whitley, a social worker, has no real access to policy makers. She has no enforcement, or investigatory authority, and no actual authority to really do anything at all. The Pentagon even went so far as to ignore a subpoena and prevent Dr. Whitley from testifying before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in July 2008.

Specifically, Secretary Gates is accused of ignoring specific Congressional mandates and deadlines designed to implement a sexual assault and harassment prevention system. Instead, plaintiffs allege that Gates hired an inexperienced contractor to implement that prevention system – and that the contractor that was selected had only three employees and their prior contracts were solely for janitorial work. The Washington Post reported on this specific contractor story debacle on November 26, 2010. The inexcusable lack of seriousness with which this epidemic has been treated by the Pentagon truly shocks the conscience.

SWAN Policy Director and former Marine Greg Jacob recently detailed the crux of the investigatory deficiencies within the military for these types of crimes. He stated “[t]here’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence…Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, ‘the character and military service of the accused’.” Jacob described the assessment of each reported crime as “…an HR approach to criminal conduct…Military justice imbued me with the ability to be judge and jury. Honestly, I had no idea what to do.”

It almost sounds impossible to believe – how the DOD has ignored this growing epidemic for years and still no one has been held accountable. Where is the outrage – and where are the resignations? Donald Rumsfeld has not been held to answer for his knowing refusal to implement reform measures mandated by Congress. And on Rumsfeld’s recent book tour, not once during his numerous interviews did any journalist ask a single question about this issue. Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has responded with vague acknowledgments of a clear problem but with no specific response regarding his own failures to address the problem of what can only be characterized as complicity in perpetuating the problem.

An August 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the results of a 2006 survey of 3,750 servicemembers stationed in the U.S. and overseas concluded that:

…occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. At the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip.

Despite the inescapable evidence that this problem is getting worse with each passing year the DOD still maintains that it has a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault in the ranks.

So now these seventeen brave veterans have gone public – with news conferences and repeated interviews – detailing the horrific assaults they have endured and the aftermath of deigning to report these crimes.

The problems for these victims do not get any better when they return home. Shamed, traumatized, and psychologically scarred – suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder known as military sexual trauma (MST) – these victims are so disabled that they cannot function let alone find employment. To add further insult to this disgraceful treatment of the women and men victimized by the DOD’s recalcitrance, these victims have found it next to impossible to receive disability compensation from the Veterans Administration (VA) for their resulting MST. The main reasons being a lack of evidence, evidence being destroyed, and a patently unfair evidentiary burden that victims finds nearly impossible to satisfy. Representative Chellie Pingree (D - ME) recently introduced legislation to redress this specific compensation issue. H.R. 930 will “…mandate that survivors of military sexual violence get the same service-connected disability compensation for their mental health conditions and physical injuries that combat veterans are currently awarded for wounds of war.”

A previous lawsuit filed last December has also charged the DOD with a failure to comply with numerous and ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation regarding the military’s records detailing the reports, investigations, and subsequent dispositions of these crimes.

And the statistics are indeed staggering. In December 2010, the Pentagon released its annual report on sexual harassment and violence – and the number of reports increased 64 percent from the previous year.

Last December, Al Jazeera reported the following shocking statistics:

Every year, rape increases at an alarming rate within American military institutions – and even males are victims of the cycle. In fact, due to raw demographics, one can roughly surmise that most victims of sexual abuse in the military are male. Regardless of gender, reports of victims of military sexual assault have been increasing. In 2007, there were 2,200 reports of rape in the military, whilst in 2009 saw an increase up to 3,230 reports of sexual assault. Many of the victims suffer from Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and are shamed into silence, with numerous cases not even reported. A disturbing trend, however, is how military officials seem to be sweeping this damaging issue under the rug and deflecting blame.

Even more disturbing is the fact that “[a]ccording to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the rate of sexual assault on women in the military is twice that in the civilian population.” Furthermore, “[c]ompared with a 40 per cent arrest rate for sex crimes among civilians, only eight per cent of investigated cases in the military lead to prosecution.”

In 2006 Congress required the Pentagon to begin tracking these reported crimes and their subsequent disposition. Al Jazeera reported that in 2006:

…there were 2,974 reported cases of rape and sexual assault in the military. Of these, only 292 cases resulted in trials, and those netted only 181 prosecutions of perpetrators. Nearly half the cases are dismissed for lack of adequate proof or due to the death of the victim. Less than 11 per cent of the cases result in a court martial. Often, those prosecuted merely suffer a reduction in rank or pay, and 80 per cent receive an honourable discharge nonetheless. The victim, on the other hand, risks ending his or her career when they file charges.

Last week the Air Force released a study finding that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men have been sexually assaulted while serving in the Air Force.

Speaking with SWAN’s Policy Director Greg Jacob, he discussed the current status of the litigation and how SWAN has been working to garner increased bipartisan support for legislative and regulatory reform within the military and the VA. He believes Congress has the political will to act and that the issue is being taken seriously now that the class action lawsuit has been filed. He told me that even though the victims desperately need to be compensated for their disabilities, what these women and men are really seeking is real reform and justice for their suffering and help for those women and men dealing with the threats of sexual violence each and every day while still trying to serve the nation with honor.

But real change can only be achieved when the military begins to consider the seriousness of the crimes and the impact on the victims as paramount to any potential impact on the careers of the accused servicemembers; right now the concern within the military is focused solely on protecting the accused and not the victims. The military has become an entrenched system that all too easily blames victims – and retaliates against those victims with systematic harassment and intimidation. Victims are subjected to ridicule and they all too often become convinced that the shame will be too much to bear.

Real change will take time – but before that change can even begin the military and Secretary Gates must take responsibility for refusing to confront the problem and acknowledge the military’s complicity in obstructing justice for so many years and creating what Greg Jacob called a “climate of impunity.”

You can visit SWAN’s Change.org page to take action and let Congress know that the Armed Forces must be held accountable for perpetuating this rape and sexual assault epidemic.

Antoinette Bonsignore, J.D., is a Seattle based workers’ rights advocate most recently focused on worker compensation issues. She is a regular blogger for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. She lives in Redmond, WA.