'CHANGE' - United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.”

'CHANGE' - United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.” HT: Heritage.

James Jay Carafano, America’s leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, has criticized the current state of the US military, calling it “not a bad grade for kindergarten,” but certainly “not much to show for a commander-in-chief after seven years of stewardship over America’s military.”

His comments on The Heritage Foundation website follow the assessments of the US military index, released by the Foundation in its “2016 Index of US Military Strength” report.

The report concluded that the US’ military posture is rated as “marginal” for its Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Nuclear power, trending toward “weak”, and is just plain “weak” for the Army.

The Status of U.S. Military Power

Finally, we assessed the military power of the United States in three areas: capability, capacity, and readiness. These three areas of assessment are central to the overarching questions of whether the U.S. has a sufficient quantity of appropriately modern military power and whether military units are able to conduct military operations on demand and effectively.

The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.

The characterizations shown are not a reflection of the competence of individual service members or the professionalism of the services or Joint Force as a whole; nor do they speak to the U.S. military’s strength relative to other militaries around the world. Rather, they are assessments of the institutional, programmatic, and matériel health or viability of America’s hard military power.

Our analysis concluded with these assessments:

• Army as “Weak.” The Army’s score dropped from “marginal” last year to “weak” this year, a development that can be attributed primarily to a drop in capacity, as the Army has fewer BCTs ready for deployment abroad. The Army’s capability and readiness scores remained static over the past year as the service continued to struggle with recouping readiness levels after years of budget cuts.

• Navy as “Marginal.” The Navy again scored strong in readiness, but at a cost to future capability. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea, but this is beginning to affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. With scores of “weak” in capability (due largely to old platforms and troubled modernization programs) and “marginal” in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet operational requirements. Moving forward, the fleet will be further strained to meet operational demands, especially as Reagan-era platforms increasingly near the end of their service lives.

• Air Force as “Marginal.” In 2015, the Air Force flew sorties in support of many named operations, resulting in a higher than anticipated operational tempo. The USAF scored “very strong” in capacity. Capability scored as “marginal,” remaining static since last year’s assessment, while “readiness” dropped from “strong” to “marginal.” Although difficult to categorize, the readiness decline is best attributed to reports that under half of the service’s combat air forces meet full-spectrum readiness requirements. The aggregate score of “marginal” is a decline from the 2015 Index score of “strong”, driven primarily by degradation in capability and readiness.

• Marine Corps as “Marginal.” As with last year, the Corps’ strongest suit was in readiness, but even here there are problems as stated by the Corps itself. While the fighting competence of the service is superb, it is hampered by aging equipment; troubled replacement programs for its key ground vehicles (particularly its amphibious personnel carriers); and a shrinking force. The progress the Corps has made in replacing its rotary-wing aircraft has been a notable bright spot in its otherwise uninspiring modernization portfolio.

• Nuclear Capabilities as “Marginal.” Modernization, testing, and investment in the intellectual/talent underpinnings of this sector are the chief problems facing America’s nuclear enterprise. Delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weapons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive programs of competitor states. Following developments abroad in regions of national interest and increased uncertainty globally, there is now a greater need to modernize U.S. nuclear capabilities, particularly with regard to aging delivery systems. Continued reliance on legacy systems such as the B-52 will eventually diminish the effectiveness of the nuclear triad and lead to the degradation of our nation’s strategic deterrence. Overall

In aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated as “marginal” and is trending toward “weak.”

Overall, the Index concludes that the current U.S. military force is capable of meeting the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities but that it would be very hard-pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies.

The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force have placed it under significant pressure. Essential maintenance continues to be deferred; fewer units (mostly the Navy’s platforms and the Special Operations Forces community) are being cycled through operational deployments more often and for longer periods; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are problematic.

The shift (since last year’s Index) in two services—the Army and Air Force—to a lower category in the course of a single year is surprising and should be seen as evidence of the rapidly accumulating effects of inadequate funding during a time of higher operational demand and policies that have traded long-term health for near-term readiness.

The cumulative effect of these factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. Read and download the full report here.

Can the American Energy Revolution Survive a Deal with Iran?

Can the American Energy Revolution Survive a Deal with Iran? by Gal Luft

Downstream Today.

There is no lack of voices warning against the dangerous implications of the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration is advancing with Iran. 

The opposition has mostly focused on the destabilizing geopolitical impact of a nuclear Iran and what it means for the security of the U.S. and its allies. But there is one less obvious casualty – the North American oil and gas industry.

Undoubtedly in the event of lifting of the sanctions, cash-starved Iran would do all in its power to quickly ramp up its oil exports to make up for lost revenues, and the oil market could face an injection of 500,000-800,000 barrels/day of Iranian crude.

At a time when U.S. crude oil supplies are already at their highest level in more than 80 years and storage facilities are reaching their maximum capacity, an influx of Iranian oil could easily slice current oil prices by half. This would be a crippling blow to America's oil and gas industry, effectively marking the end of the North American energy renaissance.

Even before Iran opens the floodgate the industry finds itself in a precarious situation. To cover their capital investment and operational costs, North American oil drillers have collectively borrowed in recent years about half a trillion dollars. 

This debt was secured from financial institutions on the premise that the oil would be sold for $100 a barrel or so. But at $50 a barrel the revenues are out of tune with expectations. To avoid bankruptcy, oil companies are forced to pump as much oil as they can to generate sufficient cash flow in order to service their debt. But such Red Queen practice cannot go on for much longer.

Hence, many projects have been shelved or streamlined; U.S. rig count, a key barometer of drilling activity, has been declining for the past six months; oil services companies have announced 40,000 layoffs to cope with lower oil prices; and independent oil and gas companies, particularly those with high production costs, are facing defaults and bankruptcies.

The slide in oil prices also impacts the natural gas market. The North American shale revolution has unleashed huge amounts of natural gas but, due to lack of infrastructure to export the gas to international markets, America's gas is under-demanded and oil companies holding large amounts of gas in their portfolios are losing their shirts on this commodity as well. 

So far, the industry has put its faith on the construction of several multi-billion dollar LNG terminals from where the gas could be shipped to Europe and Asia. And indeed five such projects have been approved for construction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

But a few of these projects could be derailed if the Iranian oil tsunami occurs. LNG prices in Asia are indexed to oil. This means that low oil prices drag down LNG prices - the spot price of LNG in Japan is at its lowest level in five years despite the fact that the country's fifty nuclear reactors are still idle - making America's LNG less competitive in the Asian market compared to Australian or Qatari gas.

Developers of LNG liquefaction facilities in the U.S. who for years struggled to obtain export permits will soon realize that their revenue projections and debt structure may no longer be viable under the low price scenario.

If there is any salvation for the industry, it is in the creation of a new market for its product. This can be done in the sector in which it already has a big stake – transportation. Indeed this is the only sector that can gobble an amount of domestic natural gas significant enough to recover the depressed natural gas market.

But to generate demand for natural gas in transportation, cars, trucks and ships must be opened to fuels derived from the commodity, like methanol, ethanol, compressed natural gas and electricity. 

For this to happen automakers should be offered an option to reduce their fuel economy obligation – an unachievable 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the current efficiency level – if they open most of their cars to some sort of fuel competition, whether through flex fuel engines, electric motors, natural gas engines, fuel cells etc.

The abundance of choice enabling vehicles would give rise to greater demand for natural gas and this would pad the balance sheets of America's energy companies and keep them viable until the oil market rebalances itself.

It will also provide consumers with lasting protection against future oil price hikes.A barrel of oil has roughly six times the energy content of a million Btu of natural gas. At current oil prices, gas is almost three times cheaper than oil on an energy equivalent basis. This means there is enough room for oil prices to come down without crowding out gas from the transportation fuel market. Hmmm......Just another link in the chain grinding America down. Read the full story here.

U.S. Millennials consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving.

U.S. Millennials consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving. (ets).

Millennials may be on track to be our most educated generation ever, but they consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving.

The results of this report help shed light on the growing inequality of opportunity in the U.S. and the impact this has on both skills acquisition and outcomes for both current and future generations.

This report, the first in a series to be produced by Educational Testing Service using data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), is an attempt to focus attention on a topic of interest to a broad range of constituencies.

The subject of this report is our nation’s millennials, those young adults born after 1980 who were 16–34 years of age at the time of the assessment. The authors chose to center attention on this cohort for several key reasons.

First, these young adults include the most recent products of our educational systems. Second, according to recent reports, they have attained the most years of schooling of any cohort in American history. And, finally, millennials will shape the economic and social landscape of our country for many years to come.

One central message that emerges from this report is that, despite having the highest levels of educational attainment of any previous American generation, these young adults on average demonstrate relatively weak skills in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments compared to their international peers.

These findings hold true when looking at millennials overall, our best performing and most educated, those who are native born, and those from the highest socioeconomic background. Equally troubling is that these findings represent a decrease in literacy and numeracy skills for U.S. adults when compared with results from previous adult surveys.

Millennials may be on track to be our most educated generation ever, but they consistently score below many of their international peers in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE). The results of this report help shed light on the growing inequality of opportunity in the U.S. and the impact this has on both skills acquisition and outcomes for both current and future generations.

How do the average scores of U.S. millennials compare with those in other participating countries?

• In literacy, U.S. millennials scored lower than 15 of the 22 participating countries. Only millennials in Spain and Italy had lower scores.

• In numeracy, U.S. millennials ranked last, along with Italy and Spain.

• In PS-TRE, U.S. millennials also ranked last, along with the Slovak Republic, Ireland, and Poland.

The youngest segment of the U.S. millennial cohort (16- to 24-year-olds), who could be in the labor force for the next 50 years, ranked last in numeracy along with Italy and among the bottom countries in PS-TRE. In literacy, they scored higher than their peers in Italy and Spain.

How do U.S. top-performing and lower-performing millennials compare to their international peers? What is the degree of inequality in the score distribution?

• Top-scoring U.S. millennials (those at the 90th percentile) scored lower than top-scoring millennials in 15 of the 22 participating countries, and only scored higher than their peers in Spain.

• Low-scoring U.S. millennials (those at the 10th percentile) ranked last along with Italy and England/Northern Ireland and scored lower than millennials in 19 participating countries.

The gap in scores (139 points) between U.S. millennials at the 90th and 10th percentiles was higher than the gap in 14 of the participating countries and was not significantly different than the gap in the remaining countries, signaling a high degree of inequality in the distribution of scores.

How do millennials with different levels of educational attainment perform over time and in relation to their peers internationally?

Although a greater percentage of young adults in the U.S. are attaining higher levels of education since 2003, the numeracy scores of U.S. millennials whose highest level of education is high school and above high school have declined.

Since 2003, the percentages of U.S. millennials scoring below level 3 in numeracy (the minimum standard) increased at all levels of educational attainment.

U.S. millennials with a four-year bachelor’s degree scored higher in numeracy than their counterparts in only two countries: Poland and Spain.

The scores of U.S. millennials whose highest level of educational attainment was either less than high school or high school were lower than those of their counterparts in almost every other participating country.

Our best-educated millennials—those with a master’s or research degree—only scored higher than their peers in Ireland, Poland, and Spain. What impact do demographic characteristics have on the performance of U.S. millennials?

Among all countries, there was a strong relationship between parental levels of educational attainment and skills; across all levels of parental educational attainment, there was no country where millennials scored lower than those in the United States.

The gap in scores between U.S. millennials with the highest level of parental educational attainment and those with the lowest was among the largest of the participating countries.

In most countries, native-born millennials scored higher than foreign-born millennials; however, native-born U.S. millennials did not perform higher than their peers in any other country. Hmmm.....This is how Empires decline and Vanish!Read the full report here.

Hmmm....Time for the "Obama Hymn"? Springsteen favored to write new US anthem, WHO ordered this poll?

Hmmm....Time for the "Obama Hymn"? Springsteen favored to write new US anthem, WHO ordered this poll?(Yahoo).Twenty-two percent of Americans think veteran rocker Bruce Springsteen should compose a new US national anthem to replace "The Star-Spangled Banner," suggests an online poll released Monday. That's more than the 19 percent who think country legend Dolly Parton is up to the task, or the 18 percent who favor soulman Stevie Wonder, according to the poll for the CBS current affairs show "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine. Eleven percent named venerable singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, 10 percent favor movie soundtrack composer John Williams, eight percent voted for rapper Jay-Z and five percent named pop diva Madonna. Pollsters telephoned a random sample of 1,026 adults nationwide between April 27 and 30 for the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Based on a poem by Francis Scott Key describing the British naval bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland during the War of 1812, "The Star-Spangled Banner" has been the official US national anthem since 1931.Hmmmm......Where there's smoke....there's fire.Read the full story here.

Video || Michelle proud of her country Turns the East Room Into a Gym.

Video || Michelle proud of her country Turns the East Room Into a Gym.(WHD).Michelle Obama appeared on NBC’s “The Biggest Loser” last night, working out with a group of contestants in the East Room. This doesn’t really seem like the proper use of this exquisite, historic chamber – a national treasure that has hosted events like presidential press conferences, the signing of landmark legislation like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the funeral of Abraham Lincoln.Hmmmm........When the character of a woman is not clear to you, look at her friends. Japanese Proverb.Read and see the full story here.