Friday, August 14, 2020

Home » » American Legion - Daily News Clips 8.13.20

American Legion - Daily News Clips 8.13.20

Marine Corps League Yankee Detachment #255  August 14, 2020    No comments

 

Good morning, Legionnaires and veterans advocates, it’s Thursday, August 13, 2020.  
On this date in history:  
  • Shortly after midnight on this day in 1961, East German soldiers begin laying down barbed wire and bricks as a barrier between Soviet-controlled East Berlin and the democratic western section of the city. 
  • 1926: Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro is born in the Oriente province of eastern Cuba. The son of a Spanish immigrant who had made a fortune building rail systems to transport sugar cane, Fidel attended Roman Catholic boarding schools in Santiago de Cuba. He became involved in revolutionary politics while he was a student and in 1947 took part in an abortive attempt by Dominican exiles and Cubans to overthrow Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo. In the next year, he took part in urban riots in Bogota, Colombia. The most outstanding feature of his politics during the period was his anti-American beliefs; he was not yet an overt Marxist. 
  • On August 13, 1982, the teenage coming-of-age comedy Fast Times at Ridgemont High opens in theaters around the United States. Written by Cameron Crowe and directed by Amy Heckerling, the film follows a year in the life of high school students Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh), Linda (Phoebe Cates), Mark (Brian Backer) and Mike (Robert Romanus) and their assorted classmates and teachers. The ensemble cast also featured the (then relatively unknown) future A-list actors Sean Penn, Nicolas Cage and Forest Whitaker, as well as Judge Reinhold, Eric Stoltz, Ray Walston and Anthony Edwards. 
 
 
If you wish to be removed from this email list, kindly email mseavey@legion.org with “Remove” in the subject line.  If you have received this from someone who forwarded it and would like to be added, email mseavey@legion.org.   
  
10 Aug 2020 
Military.com | By Patricia Kime  
President Donald Trump signed legislation Saturday that will broaden options for troubled veterans in the legal system and expand a home renovations grant program for disabled and blind veterans. 
The new Veteran Treatment Court Coordination Act directs the Justice Department to support the development and establishment of veterans treatment courts at the state, local and tribal levels. 
At more than 400 veterans treatment courts across the U.S., vets with substance abuse issues or mental health conditions who commit nonviolent crimes may enter court-supervised medical treatment and get access to veteran-centric services and benefits in lieu of going to jail. 
The law will encourage the development of a grant program to expand these courts across all 50 states. 
"We've wanted this for a long time. They've been trying to get it for a long time, and now we have it," Trump said after signing the bill, proposed in the House by Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., and in the Senate by Martha McSally, R-Ariz. 
"With this new law, thousands more veterans across the country facing the criminal justice system will have an alternative to jail time, ensuring they get the treatment they need," Crist said in a statement following the signing ceremony. 
"These courts have turned veterans' lives around in Arizona, and now they will be able to do the same for veterans across our nation," McSally said, also in a prepared statement. 
The first veterans treatment court was established in early 2008 in Buffalo, New York. After noticing an increase in the number of veterans appearing in the city's drug and mental health treatment legal programs, Judge Robert Russell brought in veterans and Department of Veterans Affairs advisers to help create the specialty court. 
Since 2011, the Justice Department has supported the development of veterans treatment courts, providing more than $25 million to states and localities. 
Trump on Saturday also signed a law that will give more veterans access to VA grants to renovate their homes to accommodate their disabilities. 
The Ryan Kules and Paul Benne Specially Adaptive Housing Act of 2019 expands the program to include blind veterans and raise the maximum funding veterans can receive from $83,000 to $98,000. The bill also will let eligible veterans access the funds six times, instead of three, and gives them access to the full amount every 10 years -- a provision that will let them change residences as their needs change. 
At the start of the president's press conference Saturday, Trump sowed some confusion about which bills he had just signed, referencing two he often mentions in stump speeches: the VA Mission Act, which he consistently refers to as "VA Choice," and the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, which became law in 2018 and 2017, respectively. 
"Before we begin, I've just signed two bills that are great for our vets. Our vets are special. We passed Choice, as you know -- Veterans Choice -- and Veterans Accountability," Trump said before extolling the benefits of those laws. 
"We passed Choice ... they've been trying to get that passed for decades and decades and decades, and no president has ever been able to do it. And we got it done so veterans have Choice," he said. "And now you have accountability -- that if you don't love your vets, if you're in the VA and you don't love the vets or take care of the vets, you can actually get fired if you don't do your job." 
The president then went on to talk about the treatment courts and adaptive housing laws before moving on to other subjects. 
Trump consistently refers to the VA Mission Act as VA Choice -- the program established in 2014 by President Barack Obama to widen veterans' access to health care treatment from non-VA providers. 
The legislation, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act, was created in response to a nationwide scandal over delays veterans encountered when making medical appointments -- for months and sometimes years -- and secret waiting lists kept by some VA facilities to hide the scope of the problem. 
The VA Mission Act, signed by Trump in 2018, replaced the Veterans Choice Program and gave more veterans access to private health care paid for by the VA. 
The legislation also broadened the VA's caregiver program to include disabled veterans who served before Sept. 11, 2001 -- an expansion that will begin in October -- and ordered the department to inventory its 1,100 facilities with an eye to closing or selling outdated or excess buildings. 
At the end of Saturday's press conference, a reporter asked why Trump "keeps saying [he] passed 'Veterans Choice,'" when it was "passed in 2014." 
Trump told the reporter she was "finished," and he abruptly ended the press conference. 
-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Monster.com. Follow her on Twitter @patriciakime. 
 
By MICHAEL BALSAMO AND ROBERT BURNS | Associated Press | Published: August 12, 2020 
WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the shooting of a military helicopter during a training mission this week in northern Virginia, injuring one crew member who was aboard, officials said Wednesday. 
The Air Force helicopter was flying over Middleburg on Monday when it was shot from the ground nearby, according to authorities. The helicopter made an emergency landing at the Manassas Regional Airport, and federal agents were called to the scene to investigate, the FBI said in a statement. 
The crew members aboard the UH-1N Huey helicopter, assigned to the 1st Helicopter Squadron at Joint Base Andrews, were on a routine training mission when the helicopter was struck by a bullet, the Air Force said in a statement. The helicopter was about 10 miles northwest of the airport, near Middleburg, and was flying about 1,000 feet above the ground when it was hit, according to officials. 
One crew member in the helicopter was injured but has since been treated and released from the hospital, according to authorities. The initial findings of the investigation show that the helicopter was struck by a bullet, causing some damage to the aircraft, though it landed safely, the Air Force said. 
The squadron transports senior military and civilian leaders, along with high-ranking dignitaries, and also performs emergency medical evacuations. 
Agents from the FBI's field office in Washington and from the bureau's evidence response team were called to the airport after the shooting on Monday. The FBI said it was working alongside other law enforcement agencies, including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, in order "to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident." 
Patty Prince, spokesperson for the city of Manassas, said the airport received a call from the control tower at 12:20 p.m. Monday about an inbound military helicopter that had an onboard emergency. 
Investigators are also looking to speak with any witnesses and have asked anyone who was in the area at the time to call the FBI. 
 
By NIKKI WENTLING | STARS AND STRIPES Published: August 12, 2020 
Stars and Stripes is making stories on the coronavirus pandemic available free of charge. See other free reports here. Sign up for our daily coronavirus newsletter here. Please support our journalism with a subscription. 
WASHINGTON — When Linda Schwartz first heard about coronavirus outbreaks killing residents of veterans homes in multiple states, she wanted to dig more deeply. 
Schwartz was the longtime commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs. She served as an assistant secretary of the VA under former President Barack Obama, leading the VA’s policy and planning initiatives. She’s also a Vietnam War veteran who served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 20 years, retiring in 1986 after she was injured in an aircraft accident. 
When she watched the news this spring about veterans dying alone in nursing homes, Schwartz saw herself and her family. 
“For many Vietnam War veterans, it was like we were back in Vietnam again and the same thing is happening — we’re being left behind,” Schwartz said. 
Under the direction of Vietnam Veterans of America, she assembled a committee to investigate what had gone wrong. What they found was startling: a lack of transparency about the number of coronavirus deaths at veterans homes, and a VA leadership team that shirked responsibility for the facilities. 
The committee assembled its findings and recommendations into a 16-page report that will be shared with members of Congress. The main takeaway, Schwartz said, was that the VA should be more involved with veterans homes to ensure they’re in good condition. In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, better collaboration could’ve saved lives, she said. 
“There is a sense that VA does not embrace the care of these veterans as being part of its mission,” the report states. 

Death total unknown 

The seven-person committee started its work by tallying the number of coronavirus deaths at the 162 state-run veterans homes nationwide. They found that 1,011 residents had died as of July 17. 
However, that number includes deaths at only 47 homes in 34 states. After months of calling state departments of public health and scouring data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the committee couldn’t obtain infection and fatality statistics for 115 veterans homes. 
The federal VA does not require the homes to inform them of coronavirus deaths. VA Press Secretary Christina Noel said Monday that deaths at veterans homes aren’t included in the department’s coronavirus counts. 
“The more we looked, the more we didn’t see and the more we were suspicious,” Schwartz said. “I thought, ‘Why aren’t they doing this?’ When you don’t report, you have to ask what’s going on.” 
The issue of accounting for deaths at veterans homes was brought up last month at a hearing of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Not all veterans homes are required to report information about coronavirus infections and deaths to the VA or the CDC, Rep. Julia Brownley, D-Calif., said at the time. 
“Unfortunately, we do not know how many [deaths] have occurred at state veterans homes,” Brownley said. “The department lacks a clear picture.” 
Schwartz said she believes her committee is the only entity to track deaths at the facilities comprehensively. According to their count, 33 veterans homes had seen 10 or more residents die of the virus. 
The most deaths occurred at the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Mass., and the Paramus Veterans Memorial Home in New Jersey. Each facility reported more than 80 coronavirus-related deaths. 
The Charlotte Hall Veterans Home in Maryland, the Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home in New Jersey and the Long Island State Veterans Home in New York each reported more than 60 dead residents. 
As news of the largest outbreaks started to break — particularly in Holyoke — VA Secretary Robert Wilkie was questioned about what went wrong. In multiple interviews, Wilkie said he didn’t have direct authority over the homes. 
In one interview with WSHU, an NPR affiliate, Wilkie said the VA had “moved into those veterans homes, even though by statute we have no ability to control or manage [them].” 
These statements from Wilkie were “puzzling,” “disappointing” and “disturbing,” Schwartz’s committee wrote in their report. 
“I expected this secretary would be better than that statement he made, that it wasn’t his responsibility,” Schwartz said. “He’s more than benefits and health care and cemeteries. He’s more than the people that are enrolled in the VA. He should be the champion for all veterans. That, I think, is the heart of the matter.” 
The VA has admitted more than 120 patients from 12 veterans homes into its hospitals and has provided some of the homes with personal protective equipment, coronavirus test kits and nursing staff. These actions were taken under the department’s “Fourth Mission,” to provide emergency medical care for all Americans in times of crises. 
Under law, the responsibility of operating state veterans homes falls to state governments. 
“In other words, individual states — not the federal Department of Veterans Affairs — are solely responsible for the operation and management of state-run veterans homes and any problems that arise within them,” Noel said Monday. 
Schwartz and the rest of the committee argued the care of veterans in state homes should be considered part of the VA’s core mission. 
Though the VA isn’t in charge of operating the homes, the agency does lead their oversight. The homes receive about $1 billion total in federal funding and undergo yearly inspections by the federal VA to ensure they meet a list of VA-imposed regulations. 
The Government Accountability Office investigated the VA’s oversight of state veterans homes in 2019. The GAO found that in some cases, the VA was the only federal entity to inspect the homes to see whether they met standards of care. 
The department contracted with a third party to perform all its inspections in 2018, Sharon Silas, a GAO director, said last month. The VA allowed contractors to ignore some deficiencies at the homes, and in some cases, contractors permitted leaders of state veterans homes to fix problems during inspections to avoid being cited. The VA still has not completed all of the recommendations that the GAO made in 2019 to improve inspections. 
Schwartz’s committee agreed with the GAO that the VA’s oversight was lax. As part of their recommendations, the committee suggested the VA meet with leaders of the homes to debrief about what went wrong during the pandemic and establish a plan for better communication. 
In their report, committee members wrote that state veterans homes with strong ties to their local VA hospitals fared much better than those without any collaboration. 
“I think the theme of our recommendations is that state homes are actually part of the continuum of care for veterans in America,” Schwartz said. “And there needs to be a closer relationship, more investment. It’s incumbent on both parties.” 

Military.com: Biden's VP Pick Opposes Boosting Defense Spending, But Supports Helping Vets and Families  

12 Aug 2020 
Military.com | By Richard Sisk  
Sen. Kamala Harris, named Tuesday by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as his running mate, has staked out positions against increases in defense spending. But she has supported boosting the Department of Veterans Affairs' budget, her record shows. 
The California Democrat has also called for increases in foreign aid, closer partnerships with allies on security issues, and an end to the military's transgender ban. 
In the Senate, and in her losing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, the 55-year-old has argued for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, cuts to border wall funding, and an overhaul of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force law to give Congress more say on war-zone deployments. 
Harris has mostly taken positions in line with the overall policy of the Democratic Party. 
As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, her focus was more on law enforcement, civil rights, judicial nominations and the big picture implications of great power competition. 
Her positions on national security, the Defense Department and the VA have been stated in more general terms, and she is certain to be pressed for details in a campaign that promises to be a test of her ability to stand up to criticism. 
During her campaign for the presidential nomination, her rivals often accused her of failing to explain her policy proposals and sloughing off demands for details. 
In the opening salvo against her Tuesday, President Donald Trump called her "nasty" and a "phony." 
"She wants to raise taxes, slash funds to our military" and join with Biden in efforts to "appease socialist dictators," he added. 
In August 2019, Harris responded in writing to a series of questions from the Council on Foreign Relations on national security issues. 
She said she favored having the U.S. rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action aimed at limiting Iran's nuclear programs. 
"President Trump's unilateral withdrawal from an agreement that was verifiably preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- against the warnings of our closest allies, and without any plan for what comes next -- was beyond reckless," she said. 
On China, Harris said the U.S. should work together on issues including climate change, "but we won't allow human rights abuses to go unchecked. China's abysmal human rights record must feature prominently in our policy toward the country." 
When asked whether the U.S. should give sanctions relief to North Korea in exchange for partial dismantling of its nuclear weapons, Harris said there was no way to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea. 
"But it's clear that simply demanding complete denuclearization is a recipe for failure; we must work closely with our allies to contain and reverse the short-term threats posed by Pyongyang as we work toward that long-term goal," she added. 
On veterans issues, Harris has said in campaign promotions that she would push for more access to VA health care and housing assistance for veterans with other-than-honorable discharges. 
"The bottom line is that, if we are to get serious about addressing the veterans' homelessness and suicide crises, getting at-risk veterans the health care and housing services they need is critical. This isn't just a matter of what's right, it's a matter of public health," she said. 
In general terms, Harris has stated that the nation needs to do more to support military families. 
In her campaign material, she wrote, "When a member of our armed forces deploys, it impacts entire families, not just one individual. We need to do more to prepare entire families for the challenges they may encounter when their loved one returns." 
She called for a "review of all existing pre-deployment and post-deployment training for service members" in an effort to "look for opportunities to provide more support to family members, including related to PTSD and [Traumatic Brain Injury]." 
-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com. 
 
 
By: Valerie Insinna, Joe Gould & Aaron Mehta 
August 12 at 11:19 AM 
WASHINGTON — Four key members of Congress, either individually or collectively, have quietly frozen all major U.S. arms sales to Turkey for nearly two years in a move to pressure Ankara to abandon its Russian-built S-400 air defense system, Defense News has learned. 
The legislative action, which has not been previously reported, is another sign of the deeply fractured relationship between the two NATO allies, a disruption that has already led to Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 joint strike fighter program. 
While it is unclear exactly how many potential sales have been held back, at least two significant deals are in limbo: a follow-on contract for F-16 structural upgrades and export licenses for U.S.-made engines that Turkey needs to complete a $1.5 billion sale of attack helicopters to Pakistan. Historically, the United States is the largest exporter of weapons to Turkey. 
When Congress holds up sales of major weapon systems like tanks, planes and ships, it is typically meant to rebuke a country’s specific military or political actions, such as when lawmakers attempted to block sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in 2019. But freezing arms sales is a diplomatic tool that the United States hasn’t used against Turkey since 1978, after the Turkish military invaded Cyprus. 
Defense News learned of the situation from a half dozen sources in Congress, the administration, and the defense industry, all of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivities involved. 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and House Foreign Affairs ranking member Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, acknowledged they are part of the freeze after they were contacted by Defense News. 
The two other lawmakers who can sign off on foreign military sales ― House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., are also part of the hold, according to multiple Capitol Hill sources. Neither would comment for this story. 
“There is serious concern over [Turkey’s purchase of the S-400] in both parties and in both chambers on the Hill, and until the issues surrounding this purchase are resolved I cannot and will not support weapon sales to Turkey,” Risch said in an email to Defense News. 
“An oh shit moment” 
Turkey’s relationship with the United States has been strained for several years — especially with Congress. 
Lawmakers have blasted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deepening ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Erdogan’s rejection of U.S. offers to buy the Patriot surface-to-air missile system over the Russian-made S-400 and Turkey’s military incursion last year into Kurdish-controlled northern Syria also frustrated members of Congress. 
“Turkey is a longtime strategic ally of the United States. That relationship has deteriorated dramatically in recent years and is quickly deteriorating further,” Risch said. “President Erdogan’s purchase of the Russian S-400 significantly changed the nature of our relationship. This purchase benefits our adversary Putin and threatens the integrity of the NATO Alliance.” 
Traditionally, during the arms sales process, the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee — the so-called “four corners” — are granted an opportunity to dissuade the U.S. State Department from approving arms sales to foreign governments on an informal basis. The lawmakers have used that notification period to block sales from moving forward, but they consider such deliberations sensitive and rarely speak publicly about them. 
Engel has refused to sign off on military sales to Turkey since mid 2018, while Risch has maintained his own hold since Turkey officially took possession of the S-400 in July 2019, according to multiple congressional sources. McCaul doesn’t have a blanket hold, and has, at certain points, signed off on sales specifically in support of NATO operations. 
“Nobody has signed off on anything, roughly, for the last year,” said one congressional source. “Nothing moves in this process until all four of the offices have said, ‘yea.’” 
A second congressional source described Turkey taking possession of the S-400 as “kind of, pardon my language, an oh shit moment.” The source added that Turkey riled lawmakers further in November, when it publicly targeted a Turkish F-16 with the S-400, a move interpreted as an implicit threat against other F-16 users, such as the United States. 
“Not only was it intentionally provocative, but it happened the day after Erdogan was in the Oval Office,” the source said. 
Turkey’s September 2017 decision to purchase the S-400 created a major rift between Turkey and its alliance partners. NATO officials quickly sounded the alarm that Turkey would compromise NATO’s security if it plugged the S-400 into allied systems, as the Russian system would be sharing a network with sensitive alliance data. Most significantly, American officials worried that the system would be able to gain information about the F-35, compromising the stealth capabilities of the jet. The presence of Russian contractors in Turkey to support the S-400 was also a concern. 
President Donald Trump has yet to engage in the sort of high-profile confrontation with Congress over Turkey such as when he vetoed Congress’s attempt to halt U.S. sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year. But the administration has made efforts to lobby lawmakers in favor of individual deals with Turkey, according to the second congressional source, who noted opposition to Turkey is both bipartisan and bicameral. 
“Right now, the mood [in Congress] toward Turkey is enormous,” the source said. “Unless Turkey wants to change the narrative and do a mea culpa, the president could very easily lose a veto override vote.” 
Just as the Trump administration has been quiet about the hold on sales, so have the U.S. defense contractors who would benefit from those purchases. 
Two sources with ties to major defense primes said they had not seen evidence of a full-scale lobbying push from industry to clear the way for these deals, which include new sales and the renewal of existing contracts typically viewed as routine. 
Instead, an unspoken consensus exists among contractors to wait out the holds until tensions between the United States and Turkey cool, or until new policymakers in either a Biden or second Trump administration shift the White House’s willingness to work with Turkey. 
“We’re operating under the impression that anything that requires congressional notification will not move forward this year,” said one source. 
Risch in particular has evinced frustration the United States could not reach a deal on the Patriot system. Similarly, when congressional ire was peaking over Turkey’s invasion of Syria in October, Engel called Erdogan an “authoritarian thug” whose rule is “a glaring black mark on Turkey’s historic secular, democratic traditions.” 
“We need to pressure him while ramping up diplomacy in the hopes of getting Turkey back on the right track as a NATO ally,” Engel said at the time. 
Another motivating issue is the lack of action from the Trump administration on implementing the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA. 
Under that law, the Trump administration is bound to level sanctions against any nation that purchase a major defense article from Russia, but the administration has yet to impose those sanctions, much to the consternation of Congress. 
“Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 is unacceptable and undermines NATO’s mission to deter Russian aggression,” McCaul said in a email to Defense News. “The Administration must impose the sanctions required by law in response to this purchase. Turkey must reverse course on this destabilizing action to renew the United States’ confidence in our defense relationship.” 
McCaul supports a proposal to lift CAATSA sanctions against Turkey, once imposed, if Turkey no longer possesses the S-400. That proposal passed as part of the House’s version of the annual defense policy bill. 
Melissa Dalton, a former Pentagon official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called the lack of resistance from the administration “surprising, in the sense that Turkey is an actual ally, whereas the Saudis are just a close partner.” But she noted that Turkey falls on a seam between the European and Middle Eastern subject teams, both at the Pentagon and at the State Department, and so putting together “a coherent policy to start with is tough.” 
Through a spokesman, the State Department declined to comment on the Turkey arms hold. 
In a statement to Defense News, the Turkish embassy in Washington said “There are a number of arms procurement cases for Turkey, pending approval in Congress. As a staunch member of NATO and an ally of the U.S., we are confident that approval of these requests without further delay will be a natural outcome of our strategic cooperation. 
“The U.S. is our number one trade partner in defense industry and we believe that it is in the strategic interest of both Turkey and the U.S. to further increase our bilateral cooperation in this field.” 
Industrial impact 
The defense industry is watching the export issue closely. 
Arms deals between the United States and Turkey totaled nearly $1 billion from 2015 through 2019, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. During that time, Turkey ranked within the United States’ top 20 customers, with purchases that included aircraft and missiles. Its military is now in the market for trainer helicopters. 
Not all arms deals to Turkey have stopped. Older cases that are already underway have not paused, and any weapons sales — be it Foreign Military Sales (FMS), where the U.S. government acts as a go-between, or Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), in which the country deals directly with industry — less than the $25 million threshold is not subject to Congressional approval. 
But direct commercial sales and low-tier FMS cases tend to be smaller deals, such as spare parts, ammunition, and maintenance packages for aging equipment. The tanks, planes and ships that form the core of any modern military remain the province of major FMS sales. 
The blockage has paralyzed negotiations for several deals, including a follow-on contract for F-16 upgrades, according to one source with knowledge of the matter. 
Lockheed Martin is performing structural upgrades to a portion of Turkey’s aging F-16 Block 30 fleet under a direct commercial sales contract that expires this fall. Defense News reported in 2017 that it would take until 2023 for Lockheed to complete modifications for all 35 F-16s included in the deal. 
An industry source with knowledge of the F-16 contract said that Lockheed is still “planning to complete the requirements” of the order and does not “foresee any performance changes or requirement changes.” 
When asked to comment about the Turkish F-16 upgrade contract, Lockheed Martin officials said that “any questions related to F-16 sustainment work should be directed to the U.S. government.” 
Another side effect of Congress’ hold is the endangerment of a $1.5 billion deal between Turkey and Pakistan for the sale of 30 Turkish-made T129s attack helicopters, an issue Defense News reported on earlier this year. 
Two major Turkish firms are licensed to domestically produce the T129 and its engine. Turkish Aerospace Industries manufactures the helicopter through a partnership with Italian-British aerospace company AgustaWestland. Meanwhile, the helicopter’s CTS800 engine — originally designed by the Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company, a joint venture between U.S.-based Honeywell and U.K.-based Rolls Royce — is made by Tusaş Engine Industries. 
Because the CTS800 was originally produced in the United States, Turkey cannot sell T129s — or any weapon system containing that engine — without obtaining an export license from the U.S. government. 
But those licenses are also being held back as a result of the congressional block on arms deals, leaving Tusaş Engine Industries racing to develop a replacement engine for the T129. 
“Pakistan has agreed to give us another year [to resolve the problem]. We hope we will be able to develop our indigenous engine soon to power the T129,” Ismail Demir, the head of Turkey’s top procurement agency, said Jan. 6. “After one year, Pakistan may be satisfied with the level of progress in our engine program, or the U.S. may grant us the export license.” 
Threatening the T129 sale to Pakistan hurts Turkey more than just financially, said Joel Johnson, a Teal Group analyst who has previously worked for the State Department and as a staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
For one, the sale cements a relationship between Turkey and a fellow Islamic nation, signaling the country’s pivot from the West. Increasing annual defense exports is also a key priority for Erdogan, who vowed in 2015 to boost arms sales to $25 billion by 2023 and to rid the Turkish defense industrial base of its reliance on foreign suppliers. 
“This is a nerve ending that is very sensitive to Erdogan. It’s not the helicopters, per se, it’s the symbolism of the sale that hits him in a way that hurts,” Johnson said. 
Honeywell and Rolls Royce declined to comment for this story. 
The current hold marks the first U.S. arms embargo on Turkey since 1975, after Turkey invaded Cyprus and Washington halted sales of weapons and military assistance to Turkey for three years. 
Some industry officials worry that if the hold extends much beyond 2021, the relationship between American and Turkish defense contractors could diminish as legacy contracts expire, leading Turkish firms to seek industrial partnerships elsewhere. 
“What value [does] the Hill or the administration see in holding up these legacy areas of cooperation? Do we really think that will influence Erdogan’s decision making?” the source said. “Will industry be able to simply restart the defense industrial cooperation once Erdogan is out of power in the future? I think that’s the tricky part. The policy decision makes sense, but the byproducts of that policy decision and the implications down the road have the potential to hurt industry and U.S. national security.” 
But Teal’s Johnson countered that Congress’ block on sales could force the White House to work with lawmakers more closely on issues related to Turkey, including potential sanctions or punitive measures in the wake of the S-400 acquisition. 
“Congress can’t negotiate with Turkey. They can only really go negotiate with the White House, so the question is, what do they want the White House to do, and is anybody talking?” he said. “Normally, if you had a normal president, the congressional staffers would be quietly talking to the [National Security Council] and the State Department about what they want. … It’s hard to see the way forward with this group.” 
Even if Turkey fulfills U.S. government demands and arm sales resume, it remains to be seen whether Turkey will still line up to buy American weapons. 
Over the past 15 years, Turkey has drastically cut its spending on weapons imports, going from the world’s third largest importer in the 1995-1999 timeframe to 15th in 2015-2019, according to SIPRI. 
The last FMS deal approved by the State Department to Turkey was in 2018: an offer to sell 80 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missiles, and 60 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles — a last ditch effort by the U.S. government to entice Ankara to cancel its S-400 purchase in favor of an American air defense system. It was never completed, as Turkey pressed on with the procurement of the S-400. 
Ultimately, the Patriot deal was taken off the table. 
According to figures from the State Department, in 2017 the United States authorized more than $587 million in DCS sales for Turkey and shipped equipment worth more than $106 million. The next year, the United States approved more than $600 million and shipped $136 million in weapons. In 2019, more than $615 million was authorized and over $66 million shipped. 
Although the United States remains Turkey’s biggest foreign supplier of weapons, the country makes a fair amount of military goods domestically, has purchased Russian arms like the S-400, and even flirted with buying a Chinese missile system in 2013. 
“They have a reasonably capable defense industrial base that is getting more capable because of investment going in from the government. They’ve also become a little more of a catholic shopper,” said Douglas Barrie, a military aerospace expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. “They have some options. They wouldn’t just have to look to Europe if the U.S. was no longer seen as a supplier nation to them. I think, on some occasions, they may look farther afield.” 
It’s unclear whether a retaliatory action like the arms sale freeze helps bring Erdogan to the table, or whether it pushes Turkey even further into Russia’s arms. 
“The alliance is incredibly troubled at the moment, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale,” Dalton said. “The U.S. has a lot at stake in terms of Turkey’s trajectory, and the NATO alliance has a lot at stake as well. So for all those reasons, [any actions] need to be framed as part of a broader approach. 
“I don’t have high confidence that it’s being framed in that way.” 
 
     

    “ Pro Deo et Patria “
        James W. Casey
              Adjutant
      American Legion
Department of New York

0 comments:

Post a Comment