From the official release:

F-22 Advance Procurement: The Administration strongly objects to the provisions in the bill authorizing $369 million in advanced procurement funds for F-22s in FY 2011. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

For more info, see this goofy video about Congress’s F-22 love affair.

Also, after resolving to kick the U.S. out last February, Kyrgyzstan has reconsidered and announced that it will allow America to continue to use the Manas air base critical to the war in Afghanistan. All of those who were worried that our expulsion showed the weakness of the U.S. in the face of Russian aggression and influence can calm down again.

Apparently, the personal letter from President Obama was influential, but I am sure the extra $43 million a year didn’t hurt; Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev knows a point of leverage when he sees one. Let’s see what happens to the reported request from Kyrgyzstan that Washington refrain from criticizing the handling of next month’s elections too much…

- Nina Hachigian

Dear Member of Congress:

As former commanders in the United States military, each one of us deeply understands what our troops need to defend and protect America’s national security.  The most important imperative is to both ensure that these men and women have the proper equipment they need to protect themselves from harm as well as defend against and defeat our enemies. But it is clear that over the past several decades, the nature of those enemies has changed. The threats against America have undergone a monumental shift, as dangers emanating from traditional Cold War adversaries have given way to challenges from terrorism and other transnational entities. While we must always remain vigilant against the many large-scale conventional challenges that still persist to this day, we must also ensure our military strategy reflects the realities of 21st century. And it is essential our defense budget matches this new reality.

That is why we stand in support of the new direction put forth in the Obama administration’s defense budget.  The budget laid out by Secretary Gates will help bring the military into the 21st century and move us beyond the legacy of the Cold War. We commend the decisions by the Secretary to cut unnecessary and wasteful programs and to emphasize systems that will not only help the United States win the wars it is in but will better prepare it for the wars of the future.

To this end, we urge members of Congress to support the Obama administration’s efforts to move in a new strategic direction that will better ensure the safety and security of this country.  For too long our military’s budget priorities have been beset by an out of date mentality, creating a chasm between what the needs of our military actually were and what Congress actually funded. This budget is an essential course correction, and will bring our military hardware up to date. It will go a long way in ensuring that the men and women who fight on the front lines have the essential training and tools to successfully execute the sworn oath they took to defend and protect this nation.

Sincerely,

Brigadier General John Adams USA (Retired)

Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett USNR (Retired)

Lieutenant General John Castellaw USMC (Retired)

Brigadier General Tom Daniels USAF (Retired)

Major General Paul D. Eaton USA (Retired)

Lieutenant General Al Edmonds USAF (Retired)

Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Jr. USA (Retired)

Brigadier General John Johns USA (Retired)

Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick USA (Retired)

Brigadier General Samuel L. Kindred USA (Retired)

Rear Admiral Rosanne “Rose” LeVitre USN (Retired)

Brigadier General Earl Simms USA (Retired)

Brigadier General John M. Watkins USA (Retired)

President Barack Obama meets with his senior advisors in the Oval Office. Photo: Pete Souza/White House

About two weeks before President Obama took office, I received a call from a friend of mine who said in an ominous tone, “Well, 17 days to do what we have to do.”

“What would that be?” I asked.

“Bombing Iran, while we still can,” replied my friend, a pilot recently retired from government service. He assumed that an Obama administration would never do so.

“Regime change” in Iran has been a fixation in some quarters for years, notably among neo-conservatives who saw “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq as a stepping stone toward toppling the Iranian government and being greeted as liberators.

Their ranks include former Defense Department officials, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perl and many others who filtered into top civilian jobs at the Pentagon during the tenure of former Defense Secretary Donald P. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, in turn, is the mentor of former Vice President Richard B. Cheney, who is of a like mind, and boisterous these days on criticizing Obama.

While still vice president, Cheney said:

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences…We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times reported Cheney’s remarks on Oct. 21, 2007 at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that is home for a number of neo-conservatives. The story included a comment by Dennis Ross, a scholar at the Institute, a former aide to Wolfowitz, and now President Obama’s envoy to Iran and its environs:

Cheney’s “language on Iran is quite significant,” Ross said. It “does have implications.”

Two years later, how different is Bush-Cheney policy from that of President Obama? We don’t know yet, but there are hints.

Two prominent Middle East analysts, Flint Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, former staffers at the National Security Council, question Ross’ role in the Obama administration. In a New York Times opinion piece on May 24, 2009, they warn that President Obama may be going down the wrong road; public declarations to the contrary, they say Obama is neglecting important diplomatic opportunities to engage with Iran and truly work on better relations, including negotiations about nuclear issues.

The Leveretts criticize Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and the designation of Ross to such a key role. They note that Clinton once said she would “‘totally obliterate’ Iran if it attacked Israel.” They describe a conversation they had with Ross, in which he, like Clinton, said he doubted talks with Iran would be fruitful.

…he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past ‘diplomacy’ would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

If we take this point of view at face value, my friend who had been worried about NOT bombing Iran may be feeling appeased.

- Peter Eisner

Shawn Brimley of the Center for a new American Security speaks with Martin Savidge to understand the challenges facing the new administration in this region.

Today, a key group of Sunni legislators demanded a national referendum on the agreement and other concessions in return for its support. The agreement is still expected to pass.

In neighboring Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Lebanese President Michel Suleiman met on Tuesday. Iranian media reported that the talks would include defense cooperation to improve Lebanon’s defense capability against Israel.

Raghida Dergham, columnist and senior diplomatic correspondent for Al Hayat, joins Martin Savidge to discuss developments in the Middle East, including the Iran-Lebanon talks and the status of the U.S.-Iraq security pact.