A USAF technician at Creech Air Force Base, checks Hellfire missile attachments on a Predator.

P.W. Singer
Special to CNN

It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood blockbuster: A group of insurgents hack into American military drones, using software they got off the Internet, according to The Wall Street Journal. But, for the benefit of that screenwriter likely pounding away right now to get his idea in first - as well as for the general public - what actually happened?

Essentially, three trends are coming together in war.

First is the growing use of unmanned systems, something I explore in my book "Wired for War." Just a few years ago, the U.S. military had no interest in unmanned systems. Indeed, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, we had only a handful of unmanned systems in the air and zero on the ground in the invasion force, none of them armed.

Today, we have more than 7,000 in the air, ranging from the 48-foot-long Predator to tiny ones that can fit in a backpack, and 12,000 on the ground, such as the Packbot and Talon systems that hunt down roadside bombs. Many of these systems are armed, giving new meaning to the term "killer app."

Keep Reading...

Government and private Web sites were recently hit in a cyberattack

Suvro Banerji
AC360° Intern

The United States government faces an increasingly formidable threat: a cyber attack.

The term ‘cyber attack’ is used to define the use of computers and the internet to conduct “warfare,” or attacks, in cyberspace. Cyber-attacks use the global computer network to cross international boundaries with ease. Critical infrastructures such as gas, water and propane lines, power grids and chemical manufacturing systems can be easily accessed from a remote location via cyber space. An enemy could potentially infiltrate these systems and manipulate them without even getting caught. In some cases, they may even cause physical damage.

In the past few weeks, The White House, the Pentagon and State Department joined a roster of large corporations such as the New York Stock Exchange and Yahoo Finance that have been threatened with cyber-attacks since the 4th of July. The Department of Treasury and Federal Trade Commission websites were shut down because of these attacks. The Pentagon and the White House, however, faced little disruption.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security and at the Pentagon do not know who is behind these attacks. Obviously, this is not the first time the government has encountered this type of threat. The United States has seen a growing number of successful cyber attacks over the past few years. Even the top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged this problem last week during a press conference at the Pentagon.

"I grow increasingly concerned about the cyber world and the attacks, whether they're from individual hackers or state entities, and that's something we all need to be concerned about," said Mullen last Wednesday.

Here’s a look at some of the major cyber attacks that have affected the United States since 1964:

• 1964: AT&T monitored millions of phone calls to catch "phone freaks". They used "blue boxes" to hack a telephone operator's dialing console and made free phone calls.

• 1971: The ‘Creeper’ virus was detected on a U.S. military computer network. Infected systems showed the message, 'I'M THE CREEPER : CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.'

• 1979: Xerox researchers developed the first computer worm to look for a network for idle processors. They wanted to improve system efficiency, but it led to several destructive viruses.

• 1983: The FBI caught the "414s," a group of young hackers who broke into several United States government networks using only an Apple II computer and a modem in certain cases. Also that same year, a University of Southern California engineering student invented the term "computer virus."

• 1986: Programmers in Pakistan released what is considered to be the world’s first MSDOS virus- "The Brain." BusinessWeek magazine at the time called the virus the Pakistani flu.

• 1998: Federal officials detected intrusions in computer systems at the Pentagon and NASA. Investigations held Soviet Union responsible for the intrusion. The Russian government denied all accusations.

• 1999: The "Melissa" virus infected thousands of computers, causing $80 million in damage. The virus was propagating in the form of an email message containing an infected Word document as an attachment.

• 2000: The "I Love You" virus infected millions of computers and stole passwords and usernames. Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, Datek and other high-profile websites went offline for several hours because of so-called "distributed denial-of-service attacks."

• 2001: The Code Red Worm takes over more than 350,000 servers and uses them to attack against the White House's website. Federal officials teamed up with several tech companies to deceive the attack. It was the same year when the ‘Nimda’ worm attacked the U.S. financial sector, affecting millions of computers and slowing the entire Internet.

• 2003: The ‘Slammer’ worm affected thousands of computers in the United States delaying airline flights and disrupting financial networks.

• 2007: Pentagon officials reported as many as 1500 computers were taken off-line because of a cyber attack. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that it had no impact whatsoever on department operations.

• 2008: Republican congressmen, Reps. Frank Wolf and Christopher Smith revealed that their office computers were hacked in late 2006 and early 2007. A few Congressmen held Chinese hackers responsible for these attacks. However, security experts knocked down their claims saying they were not ‘well substantiated’.

• 2009: Computers at the White House, the Pentagon, State Department and financial institutions like Yahoo Finance and the New York Stock Exchange were attacked. Suspect is still unknown.

U.S. Military leaders consider this a matter of national security. This year, they have called for additional funding to improve the Pentagon’s cyber attack prevention program.

"It would be nice to spend that money protectively ... rather than fixing things after the fact," said John Davis, deputy head of the U.S. Strategic Command at a cyber-space conference in Omaha, Nebraska earlier this year.

On a May 29 press conference, President Obama announced the creation of a ‘cyber czar’ position to oversee "a new comprehensive approach to securing America's digital infrastructure." The president said he will personally select the person who takes on that post. So far, no one has been chosen.

A U.S. soldier on patrol in Khost province in February 2009.

Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

The Pentagon is considering a significant overhaul in how it deploys critical military units to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency, a U.S. military source tells CNN. The change is based on the experience in Iraq of special operations units commanded by Lt. General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal is slated to become the next top commander in Afghanistan if he is confirmed by the Senate.

The plan is evolving as Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expressing growing concern that American public support for the war in Afghanistan will begin declining unless the Obama Administration can demonstrate progress in improving the security situation by the end of this year according to his top spokesman.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell tells CNN that Gates believes “its critically important” for both the US and Afghan governments to make progress in the coming months although “that doesn’t mean you have to have decisive gains,” Morrell said.

Secretary Gates believes the Taliban has momentum in southern Afghanistan at this time, Morrell said. But with more than 20,000 additional US troops on the way to the warzone, people want to see “tangible” progress, Morrell said.

Gates’ concerns about potential declining US public support for the war were recently underscored in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

“People are willing to stay in the fight I believe, if they think we’re making headway. If they think we’re stalemated and having our young men and women get killed, then patience is going to run out pretty fast,” he told the newspaper in an interview.

The new idea being considered calls for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of troops to train and deploy as a unique battlefield organization, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare. The official emphasized the troops could engage in a full spectrum of operations ranging from combat, to providing medical care. In Iraq, the strategy was used to great effect on a smaller scale within the Joint Special Command, which McChrystal commanded.

“We want cohesive units, fleet of foot, specializing in counterinsurgency warfare,” the official said. The troops would deploy separately from routine deployments by other support units. But given that thousands of additional combat forces are scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan in the coming month its not clear how this new plan would be implemented within the structure of the expanding conventional force.

After serving in the war zone, the new units would come back but still stay together and most importantly stay informed on the area of Afghanistan in which they served though intelligence and military assessments. Then, when its time to return to the war zone, they would go back to the same area. The goal is develop troops with growing expertise in a particular region, the official said. And the additional benefit is the unit would build up a level of confidence with local and provincial Afghan officials who would come to know them over time.

The official underscored that one complaint the US military continues to hear from the Afghans is that US troops come to a region, serve a year and then the Afghan ‘never see them again.” This puts the incoming troops at a continuing disadvantage in a culture which values ongoing personal interaction.

The official said this type of organization closely mirrors how McChrystal operated in Iraq when he led the Joint Special Operations Command, the official said. However the idea is likely to be difficult to initially implement and it could be controversial inside the military. One potential idea calls for troops to deploy more often but for shorter tours of duty than the current 12 months. That could put further strain on military families. In addition, if troops have career expertise only in one area, it could hurt their chances for advancement within the military.

The official also noted that under McChrystal the US military will be “stepping up its intelligence game” in Afghanistan, gathering more intelligence on specific insurgent leaders, and conducting more reconnaissance and surveillance.

The plan is preliminary, and has not yet been approved by Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the source said. But Mullen several weeks ago asked McChrystal to develop a plan to provide innovative ways to increase the US military focus on Afghanistan which is now the top military priority, a senior military official tells CNN. The official briefed CNN on the plan, but declined to be named because it is all still in the preliminary stages, and many decisions have yet to be made.

Mullen now believes the U.S. military must fundamentally improve the security situation in Afghanistan in the next 12 to 24 months, the official said. That is the fundamental reason the chairman decided to press for McChrystal to become the top commander, based on his counterinsurgency field experience in Afghanistan.

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear more about the situation in Afghanistan on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal will be taking command of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

CNN

The United States replaced the top allied commander in Afghanistan on Monday, deciding "fresh eyes" are needed to reverse the course of the seven-year-old war there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

Gen. David McKiernan, who has held the post for less than a year, will be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a former special operations chief, Gates announced. He told reporters there was "nothing specific" behind McKiernan's removal, but that "new leadership and fresh eyes" were needed in a war that Washington admits it is not winning.

"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed," Gates said.

McKiernan will remain in place until the Senate confirms the appointments of McChrystal and his designated deputy, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez. Both have previous experience in Afghanistan and more history with counterinsurgency operations than McKiernan.

Keep Reading...

Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

Thousands of confidential files on the U.S. military's most technologically advanced fighter aircraft have been compromised by unknown computer hackers over the past two years, according to senior defense officials.

The Internet intruders were able to gain access to data related to the design and electronics systems of the aircraft through computers of Pentagon contractors in charge of designing and building the aircraft, according to the officials, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

In addition to the intrusion into files of the Joint Strike Fighter, hackers also gained entry into the Air Force's air traffic control systems, according to the officials.

Once broken into, the internet hackers were able to see such information as locations of U.S. military aircraft in flight.

The Joint Striker Fighter plane is the military's new F-35 "Lightning II," also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, it will be the future aircraft used by all of the branches of service.

Most of the files broken into focused on the design and performance statistics of the fighter, as well as its electronic systems, officials said. The information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against.

Additionally, the system used by the aircraft to conduct self diagnostics during flight was also compromised by the computer intrusions, according to the officials who insisted none of the information taken was highly sensitive data.

The plane uses stealth and other highly sensitive electronic equipment to defend itself and fight, but it does not appear that information was compromised because that information is stored on computers that are not connected to the Internet, according to the defense officials.

The Joint Strike Fighter's main contractor is Lockheed Martin Corp. while Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC are major subcontractors in the planes production.

On a conference call with investors on Tuesday, a Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer denied there was any breach of classified information, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

"The US govt doesn't talk a whole lot about this and neither do we. But in response to the WSJ report, we think it's incorrect," Bruce Tanner, Lockheed Martin's CFO, said. "There's never been any effective attack. We have measures in place and there's never been a successful attack."

In a statement released later, the company reiterated its position that no classified information had been accessed.

"To our knowledge, there has never been any classified information breech. Like the government, we have attacks on our systems continually and have stringent measures in place to detect and stop attacks," the statement said.

BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman spokespeople would not comment on the story and refered all questions to Lockheed Martin.

While the Joint Strike Fighter will have different variants for the different branches of service it will be used in, it also has many international partners helping build the plane and will be sold to U.S. allied countries.

The multiple nations involved raises concern about the level of computer security measures the partner countries have, officials told CNN.

Companies contracting with the Department of Defense now have to prove they are using the proper computer security before a contract can be awarded, Pentagon officials said. A measure put into place within the past year because of the increase in cyber intrusions, they said.

When asked if sensitive technology for the Joint Strike Fighter had been jeopardized, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I am not aware of any specific concerns."

Whitman would not confirm the cyber security breach for on the Joint Strike Fighter program, but said the number of attempted attacks on the US military's network were on the rise.

"We have seen the number of intrusion attempts more than double recently," Whitman said, but he would not reveal a timeline.

Whitman said the computer systems of the Department of defense are scanned thousands of times a day by entities looking for ways inside U.S. military computer networks.

Officials could not say who was behind the computer hacking, which has occurred numerous times since 2007. The intruders were able to cover their tracks making it look like the virtual break-ins were coming from various parts of the world, according to officials. The Wall Street Journal reported that the attacks appeared to orginate in China, citing "former U.S. officials."

Last month a Pentagon annual report to Congress about China's military power said China has been making continued progress in developing cyber warfare techniques.

The report noted that U.S. government computers were the target of "intrusions that appear to have originated" from China, although they were not confirmed to be from the Chinese military.

CNN requested a comment about the accusation from the Chinese Embassy in Washington. An embassy spokesman denied the allegations to the WSJ.

The Air Force, the main program manager of the JSF program, has a number of ongoing investigations into the multiple hackings, officials said.

The officials said a number of safeguards have since been put into place to protect that system.

– Producer Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report

The body of Staff Sergeant Phillip Myers, who was killed in Afghanistan, is returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. This was the first time the return of the body of a fallen member of the U.S. armed forces was opened to news outlets since media coverage was banned in 1991.

The latest satellite image shows a rocket sitting on its launch pad in the north east of the country.

Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

Talk at the Pentagon about the expected missile launch by North Korea early next month is not what you might expect.

Most, if not all, officials we have spoken to are underwhelmed at the prospect that Pyongyang could fire a ballistic missile.

“Look there’s not much we can do, if they want to launch it, they’re going to launch it,” said one senior Pentagon official, echoing the thoughts of many in the building.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely a worry about where the missile will go and what it will do, the real worry is what the missile launch means for the future of North Korea's missile program.

Pyongyang has said they will launch a communications satellite sometime in the first week of April. But the test is widely thought to be a cover for testing a ballistic missile the North Koreans would be able to use if it ever wanted to launch a nuclear weapon. Both actions are banned by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

North Korea has had a poor track record of successful ballistic missile launches, so and they are also seem to be trying to show the rest of the world they have a viable missile program. In 1998 the North Koreans said they were successful in putting a satellite into orbit but U.S. intelligence said the missile broke up before it got into space.

In 2006 it launched another long-range ballistic missile, a Taepodong-2, which blew up only 40 seconds after launch.

“Since the first time that they launched the missile it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last month. “So far, it's very short,” he said.

The worry is that North Korea learns more with each missile launch - even when they're unsuccessful - potentially making the nuclear power more and more dangerous.

The worry about a launch is what the North Koreans could glean out of a successful flight to improve the missile program. Even an unsuccessful launch can provide them with useful information, Pentagon officials say.

The U.S. believes the range on a fully operational Taepodong-2 ballistic missile could reach Alaska. But U.S. officials say the North Koreans are also working to extend that range so it could to hit as far as the west coast of the United States.

The U.S. has moved numerous ships to the western Pacific and Sea of Japan to monitor the missile flight path. While the ships have the means to track and shoot the missile down, Defense Secretary Gates has said it is highly unlikely President Obama will authorize a shoot down unless there is a direct threat to the United States.

It has been almost three years since North Korea's last launch attempt. The information the ships gather from the flight of the missile will also help the intelligence agencies discover the latest compatibilities of the North Koreans.

In the meantime, the U.S. continues to try and persuade to dissuade the North Koreans from launching the missile and from building more ballistic missiles, deter them from continuing with that activity, official say.

But expectations are low and Pyongyang will not launch, so the U.S. continues to closely monitor the missile preparations on the launch pad for an expected launch.

But Pyongyang is expected to launch anyway. So the world watches, and braces for potentially dangerous results.

CNN's Abbie Boudreau reports on the shoddy electrical work performed by the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, in Afghanistan. The faulty wiring has lead or contributed to the deaths of as many as 18 US military personnel. The Pentagon has ruled one death as a possible negligent homicide, but still KBR remains on the job, and now is wiring bases in Afghanistan with faulty electrical systems.

Ralph J. Begleiter
Special to CNN

The reversal of two decades of policy on images of returning war casualties is an important and welcome milestone for the American people.

The Pentagon's decision announced Thursday allowing media coverage of coffins of war victims returning to Dover Air Force Base - if families agree - restores to its rightful, honorable place the immense value of the sacrifice American troops make on behalf of their nation. It allows the American people to honor the dignified and respectful return of war casualties to home soil for the last time.

Although no one should have a veto over the nation's ability to pay respects to its fallen troops, I believe most families will decide that their sons and daughters deserve to be recognized publicly for their sacrifice.

Read more...

CNN The Pentagon will lift its ban on media coverage of the flag-draped coffins of war victims arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. Military vehicles carry coffins containing U.S. troops in this photo the Pentagon released in 2005. 1 of 2 But the families of the victims will have the final say on whether to allow the coverage, he said. President Obama asked Gates to review the policy, and Gates said he decided after consulting with the armed services and groups representing military families to apply the same policy that is used at Arlington National Cemetery. "I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover should be made by those most directly affected - the families," he said at a news conference. Watch Gates announce reversal » Not long after Gates' announcement, the political action committee VoteVets.org issued a written statement saying it is "fully supportive" of the decision. Advocates of opening the base to coverage point out that the unmarked coffins make it impossible to identify specific remains. Not everyone had a positive reaction. "Military Families United is disappointed in the president's decision to overturn the ban that has been in place for over 18 years," the group said in a release.   Read More...

Adam Levine
CNN Supervising Producer

If ever a phrase has given "earmark" a run for most scorned fiscal term in Washington, "war supplemental" could well be that contender.

President Barack Obama has made a big deal of saying that he wants to stop what had been a contentious Bush administration habit of using the war supplemental, requests for funding that occur outside of the regular budget process, to get the billions of dollars needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"No longer will we hide its price," Obama declared Tuesday in his speech to the joint session of Congress. War supplemental, you've been warned.

His spokesman Robert Gibbs called it "Enron accounting." BAM. POW. Take that war supplemental.

"Ending this deceptive practice is overdue," demands the Philadelphia Inquirer in a recent editorial. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, war supp.

The Bush crowd is use to defending the use of supplementals. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress back in 2005 that it was the most accurate way of accounting for the war. The drawn out budget process that starts about two years before the money is ever spent, is no way to get war costs hammered out, he told the House Armed Services committee.

"In war, circumstances on the ground can change quickly and what was not an urgent necessity at one point of a conflict might well prove to be urgent in the next as the enemy's strategy shifts and as new challenges arrive. Supplemental appropriations are prepared much closer to the time the funds are needed," Rumsfeld said. "This allows for somewhat more accurate estimates of costs, and more importantly, quicker access to the needed funds."

David Walker, who ran the Government Accountability Office for 10 years, said that there is a time and place for supplementals but an ongoing war is not one of them.

"Most are considered for emergencies, something that is unanticipated," he said. Like money to pay for the aftermath of Katrina, for example

"Keep in mind that in the normal process you are subject to the rules and limitations that exist when it comes to putting the budget together. You have an allocation for how much money you want to spend," Walker said. "Supplementals bypass all of that. You don't go through the process."

Walker said that there is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to budgeting for the war but "there is uncertainty in a lot of the budget."

The president seems to agree.

"For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception; a series of accounting tricks," Obama said earlier this week. "Budgeting $0 for the Iraq war - $0 - for future years, even when we knew the war would continue."

There's a new accounting sheriff in town, Obama declared in his speech Tuesday night.

"That is why this budget looks ahead 10 years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war," Obama said.

The Pentagon said it will do the best it can to make it work.

"The desire is, yes, to try to get away from supplementals and take those costs, those recurring, predictable war costs, seven, eight years into these conflicts, and move them increasingly into the base budget," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Wednesday.

But Morrell said that such a system is not perfect, and it would be wrong to assume that all costs can be accurately predicted in advance.

"There are going to be costs associated with the war, associated with persistent presence around the world, that are less predictable, that are going to have to remain outside the base," he said.

By that, he means a war supplemental.

President Obama wants to add troops and increase aid to Afghanistan.

Adam Levine
CNN Supervising Producer

A funny thing happened as the White House tried a relatively low-key approach to announcing that it was adding 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The military didn’t seem to be on board with the message.

The announcement by the Obama administration contrasted with how the Bush administration announced both its increase of troops in Iraq, the “surge,” and even a later addition of troops to Afghanistan last year. Both of those announcements were made in a speech from then president George Bush.

But the new administration was stuck – it knew it needed to get troops to Afghanistan to satisfy the immediate need to stabilize things, but it also knew it was not ready to announce what its strategy for Afghanistan was. You see, the administration has a review underway for a new, comprehensive strategy that looks at both the military and diplomatic needs for the war.

So the Obama White House chose instead to make the announcement at the end of a day dominated by coverage of President Barack Obama's signing of the multi-billion dollar stimulus package. The announcement came out late afternoon via Pentagon leaks and then a four-paragraph email(subject line: “Statement by the President on Afghanistan”), and outlined a 50% increase in troops to Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials told Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that the troop levels would be needed for at least another three-to-four years. But a White House official spun back to our Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry, telling him it unclear whether the troops will be there a minimum of three to four years.

“That would prejudge the outcome of the strategic review,” the senior administration official said of the total review of all aspects of the war that has been ordered by the President.

Get it? They might be needed for the rest of the president’s first term, but don’t want say it just yet.

But then the same discord repeated itself the next day.

The top commander in Afghanistan was in town to brief the Pentagon press about the plan. His opening remarks, he made clear his appearance was not an orchestrated effort to announce the troop plans.

"I know you probably think this is - I'm in Washington to coincide with the president's announcement yesterday, but, believe it or not, I'm here for a two-day Army conference and it just happened that timing lined up," General David McKiernan said.

While he said he was 'very delighted" with the announcement, he also said he expects the increased force levels to be needed for the "the next three to four to five years."

"So it'll be several years of that kind of force level?," re-asked the reporter.

"It could be as much as that," McKiernan replied.

But Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to press Thursday night, was still not willing to put a timeline on it.

"The timelines and the goals remain to be seen as a result of the strategic review," Gates, who was appointed to stay on in his role as defense secretary by the new president said.

Why the difference. The answer lies, perhaps, in the statement released announcing the increase.

"This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review," the statement said. "Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan."

The White House does not want the troop increase to be seen as a telegraphing of the ongoing review. But military commanders, like Gen. McKiernan have their own agenda. Politics aside, McKiernan seemed to be giving his own take on Afghanistan, signaling that he needs his troops. He need them for a number of years.

The official review is expected near the end of March.

Editor's Note: The State Department confirmed that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns arrived in Moscow on Wednesday and will discuss the use of the Manas military base in Central Asia with Russian officials.

AA U.S. troop guards the main access checkpoint to the Manas Air Base on December 18, 2008.

Alexandra Poolos
AC360° Editorial Producer

You might never have heard of it, but there's a tiny, impoverished Muslim country that's been playing a crucial role in America's "war on terror." And now it says it doesn't want to do that any more.

Kyrgyzstan, lodged between China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, says it will close a key U.S. airbase that supports operations in Afghanistan. The country’s president says the U.S. base will have to find a home elsewhere.

After the so-called 2005 Tulip Revolution, Kyrgyzstan became known as an islet of democracy in a region that is home to some of the world’s most entrenched dictatorships. The largely peaceful protests swept to power a new president who promised to liberalize the press, fight corruption and bring more democracy to Kyrgyzstan.

Leasing the Manas Air Base to the U.S. made the country a little-known but special American ally. The base was set to become even more important as the U.S. began preparing for a major troop gear-up in Afghanistan. President Obama has said the war there is one of his top foreign policy priorities. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, said last month that the base would be essential for the troop increase.

Now, with the imminent closure, there isn’t anywhere else in the region for the U.S. military to anchor its support operations in Afghanistan. Yes, there's the U.S. base in Bagram. But the Kyrgyz base has given the U.S. broader access to the region, and served as a vital station for refueling aircraft.

The U.S. air base in repressive Uzbekistan got booted in 2005 when the U.S. complained about human rights abuses, and the Kyrgyz base became the sole regional support for forward Afghan missions. And it’s no small operation. Run on the outskirts of the capital Bishkek, the base has close to 2,000 troops and contractors and runs around-the-clock air support missions.

Why did Kyrgyzstan decide to kick out the U.S.? Money, lots of money from Russia. The announcement came just after Russia agreed to give Kyrgyzstan over $2 billion in aid, a number that dwarfs the $150 million the U.S. had been giving.

During a visit to Moscow earlier this week, the Kyrgyz president said the issue comes down to the price the U.S. is willing to pay to keep the base open. But yesterday he sent a pretty definitive message that closure is imminent, forwarding a bill to the Kyrgyz Parliament to close the base.

The U.S. has been quick to say no final decision has been made. "It is a hugely important air base for us," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters. "We are hopeful that we can continue our good relationship with the Kyrgyz government, and can continue to use Manas in support of our operations in Afghanistan.”

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. can salvage the relationship with Kyrgyzstan - or the base, anyway. But Russia is certainly counting the closure announcement as a victory in its struggle for regional influence over governments, the military, and oil pipelines. As one U.S. embassy official told me during a visit to Kyrgyzstan in 2007, "Russia is a clearly a player."

The Army is expected to announce a new effort to study soldier suicides and links to post-combat stress.

Ann Scott Tyson
The Washington Post

Two West Point cadets have committed suicide since December and two others attempted suicide in the past two weeks, prompting the military academy's leaders to summon an Army surgeon general's suicide team to the campus today to investigate the causes.

The suicides are the first since at least 2005. The academy is passing out prevention cards, putting up posters and reviewing its procedures, and it has ordered fresh suicide-prevention training to be completed by today, said Col. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Read More...

A U.S. soldier fires at Taliban targets during a battle in eastern Afghanistan last month.

Mike Mount
CNN Senior Producer

Civilian deaths by U.S. forces in Afghanistan is a hot-button issue for President Karzai. He is known for not holding back when railing on the U.S. after a ground or air raid on an insurgent target where women and children were also killed.

The U.S. military understands his frustration but is often put in a difficult position when insurgents use the tactic of barricading themselves in mosques or homes.

The U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan has also addressed the problem by implementing tactics in an attempt to reduce civilian deaths.

But yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate panel Karzai’s rhetoric on civilian deaths from U.S. attacks is, “unhelpful.”

Pentagon spokesmen would also not elaborate on his comments, saying the comments stood on their own.

“I don't believe that his rhetoric has been helpful, and I must tell you that when I was last there and visited Bagram, I got a briefing on the procedures that our pilots go through to try and avoid civilian casualties…I took a significant element of the Afghan press with me with their cameras so that they could see that briefing and see just how hard we do work at trying to avoid civilian casualties,” Gates said.

U.S. military leaders understand that President Karzai is also candidate Karzai for upcoming elections this year and he is keeping his constituency happy.

However, Pentagon officials do say that the continued comments by the Afghan president are making it difficult for US troops - the more Karzai bashes commanders the more a gulf grows between the relationship of locals and U.S. troops.

Both Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Michael Mullen have spoken to President Karzai about his concerns on numerous occasions, officials said, and have related their same concerns on civilian deaths.

Pentagon officials said it is a touchy subject, but, “it’s not in our place to tell the President of another country of what he can or cannot say.”

Robert Gates testifies Tuesday before a Senate panel. He was wearing bandages from surgery he had on his arm.

Adam Levine
CNN Supervising Producer

Amusing moment in today’s Senate Armed Services committee, Gates admitted that his procrastination on key decisions came back to bite him when he ended up staying on.

“As I focused on the wars these past two years, I ended up punting a number of procurement decisions that I believed would be more appropriately handled by my successor and a new administration. Well, as luck would have it, I am now the receiver of those punts – and in this game there are no fair catches,” Gates noted.

Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

Did you hear the one about the guy from New Zealand who bought a used MP-3 player with a bunch of U.S. military files left on it?

According to a television station in that country, a man bought the used digital music player from a thrift store while visiting Oklahoma, only to find dozens of files with personal information on US troops including social security numbers and cell phone numbers.

Some of the files reportedly also included a mission plan and military equipment deployed on certain U.S. bases in Afghanistan.

All of the information on the player is information not publicly releasable by the U.S. military.

The files date back to 2005, according to the report, and many of the operational plans are most likely outdated; however the U.S. military would like to know how a device with that information on it ended up at a thrift store…as would unsuspecting troops who have their social security numbers sitting on a now publicly-available music player in New Zealand.

The Pentagon is not saying much because military officials have not seen the music player or the information on it first hand.

“We are aware of the story but until we can take a look at the device, there is not much we can say because we have not seen whether it is actual Department of Defense information,” according to Pentagon spokesman Col. Gary Keck.

The new owner of the MP-3 player told the New Zealand television station he is willing to let the military see what’s on it, but protocol requires the U.S. State Department to ask the government of New Zealand to ask the man if he is willing to hand it over to be examined.

The man who bought the device for only a few dollars isn’t impressed with the information on it, and really does not know what most of it means.

“I guess maybe if I went to military school I might have an idea,” told the TV station.

U.S. military officials do not yet know if the U.S. government will pursue getting the information from the man.

President-elect Obama visited injured soldiers and helped volunteers on Monday.

Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

A US military official confirms to CNN that President elect Barack Obama visited Ward 57 when he went to Walter Reed Army Medical Center earlier today.

Ward 57 is the area of the hospital where mainly those who have undergone amputation or massive other surgeries for their wounds are treated once they are out of ICU. The Ward encompasses an entire floor with a nurses station in the middle and from each side two rows of rooms stretching down the hallway.

When you visit there are often little kids and other family members on the ward visiting their wounded family member. Depending on the case, some wounded are at the point where they can get themselves in and out of wheelchairs, so they might be out in the halls, but some are just out of surgery and in very tough shape—if he visited those he would have been escorted into the room most likely by himself, as the rooms are small.

Soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder will not receive the Purple Heart, the Pentagon says.

Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

The Purple Heart medal, awarded to service members who have been physically wounded in combat, will not be given to troops diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a Pentagon statement said.

The decision, which was made in early November but just made public this week, came about after months of deliberations sparked by a question on the topic posed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a Pentagon briefing in May.

"(It's) clearly something that needs to be looked at," Gates said, responding to the query. His answer prompted a review by the Defense Department's Awards Advisory Group, made up of "award experts" in the Pentagon.

After the review, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David Chu examined the advisory group's findings and determined service members suffering from PTSD would not be eligible for the award, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. Gates agreed with the decision, Lainez added.

Thousands of service members are at risk of suffering from or have already been diagnosed with PTSD after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon statistics. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates up to 11 percent of Iraq veterans and 20 percent of Afghanistan veterans have PTSD.

"The Purple Heart recognizes those individuals wounded to a degree that requires treatment by a medical officer, in action with the enemy or as the result of enemy action where the intended effect of a specific enemy action is to kill or injure the service member," according to a statement released by the Pentagon.

"PTSD is an anxiety disorder caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event; it is not a wound intentionally caused by the enemy from an 'outside force or agent,' but is a secondary effect caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event," the statement continued.

The Defense Department statement noted that historically, Purple Heart designations are awarded for bodily injuries from "an outside force or agent," which is considered an objective standard. It also cited other Purple Heart award criteria and 76 years of precedent as other factors in deciding when to bestow the honor. The medal has never been awarded for psychological conditions, it said.

Currently, the department explained, PTSD is not diagnosed "as objectively or routinely" as would be required for the award. The Pentagon did leave the door open to possibly awarding the medal to those suffering from combat-related PTSD in the future, saying, "advancements in medical science may support future re-evaluation."

Barbara Starr | BIO
Pentagon Correspondent

Notes from CNN's Barbara Starr

- Two US military officials confirm to CNN that the Obama national security team is scheduled for a transition meeting this morning. Expected attendance: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Admiral Michael Mullen, Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton, national security advisor James Jones. (not expected Obama or Biden will attend but I don’t have that confirmed one way or the other)

- Topics will be ‘security matters’ the team will face upon taking office the officials say. you can assume middle east is on the list officials say though neither has seen the official agenda.

- Also a ‘tank’ meeting scheduled this afternoon for joint chiefs on Afghanistan strategy review—which is also one of the first issues facing national security team.