The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted
Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the
Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an
American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.

The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.

Some in Congress have vowed to fight the National Guard cuts. Its soldiers and resources are controlled by state governors unless Guard units are mobilized by the president for federal duty, as Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I remain convinced that we do not have a large enough force," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Proposals to cut funding in two key jet fighter programs were described by defense analysts and congressional aides, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the reductions have not been announced.

One plan would eliminate funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the military's next-generation combat plane.

The second would cut money for F-22 fighters during 2007. But it is actually a contract restructuring that would add that money back — and more — over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying up to four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 60 aircraft through 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.

The Joint Strike Fighter engine is being built by General Electric and England-based Rolls Royce, and the plan to dump them as suppliers has triggered intense lobbying, including a handwritten note from British Prime Minister
Tony Blair to Bush.

On the homefront, the close to $2 billion cut would hit General Electric engine plants, and possibly jobs, in Ohio and Massachusetts and a Rolls Royce plant in Indiana.

"This is a big question for GE," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. "They could get shut out of the fighter engine business over the next 10 years."

The proposal would benefit Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, which got the original contract for the Lockheed Martin aircraft, and delivered its first engine last month.

GE spokesman Dan Meador said the alternate engine program provides competition for Pratt & Whitney, helping to drive down costs while also providing a back-up if problems arise.

"It's very important to GE and Rolls Royce, and we're performing well," he said.

Defense officials, however, said the Pratt & Whitney engine has performed well and within budget, and noted that a number of other jet fighter programs — including the F-22 — have just one engine maker. Pratt & Whitney also makes the engines for the F-22.

"Not just in Yokosuka, but in cities with bases such as Okinawa ... there are many incidents and accidents involving US soldiers," Kyodo quoted local lawyer Masahiko Goto Saturday, who took part in the demonstration, as saying.

Reese, a crew member of the Yokosuka-based aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, was arrested on January 7, four days after allegedly killing Sato and stealing 15,000 yen (129 dollars) from her.

Last month, a 23-year-old female US naval officer hit three elementary school children while driving, seriously injuring one of them, but fled the scene without reporting to police.

Local police arrested the woman after a 90-minute search but released her at the demand of the US military, which claimed that she was on official duty.

The Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement allows a US military court rather than a local court to handle such cases.

Residents of communities that host US military bases have long called for a review of the agreement. They believe US laws are too lenient toward service members who commit crimes in Japan and say local laws should be applied.

The program is assured of bipartisan support with Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Clarence Pell of Rhode Island all supporting it, DID said.

The Ohios are being converted into so-called "Tactical Tridents," designated SSGNs, with accommodation for 66-102 special forces troops, special attachments for new Advanced SEAL Delivery Systems (ASDS) or the older Seal Delivery Vehicle (SDV) "mini-subs," and a mission control center. In future, the SSGNs may also carry UUV underwater robotic vehicles and even UAVs for aerial operations, the report said.

"These modifications provide the (United States) with an impressive and impressively flexible set of conventional firepower, in a survivable and virtually undetectable platform that can remain on station for very long periods," DID said. The conversion program will cost $1.4 billion, it said.

The program will allow the Navy to avoid having to decommission the four Trident subs, the USS Ohio (SSBN 726), USS Michigan (SSBN 727), USS Florida (SSBN 728) and USS Georgia (SSBN 729).

Funding for the conversion was originally approved in the Fiscal Year 2002 military appropriations bill and it proved popular in Congress. The Senate approved funding four all four nuclear subs, where President George W. Bush had only asked to convert two of them.

To create a Tactical Trident submarine, two of the Ohio Class SSBNs' 24 large vertical missile launch tubes are converted to lockout chambers to enable exit from the hull underwater, the report said. However the ASDS program is suffering from serious development problems. Until those are sorted out, existing Seal Delivery Vehicles (SDVs) will have to be used instead, DID said.

The conversion costs for the four Ohios is far less than the $1.7 billion cost for each of the new nuclear-powered Virginia class (SSN-744).

--

BMD will cost $247 billion by 2024: CBO

The annual cost of the Bush administration's missile defense plans could more than double to $19 billion by 2013, and total $247 billion from 2006 through fiscal 2024, according to a recent report.

The report, "The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans and Alternatives: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2006," was produced by the Congressional Budget Office and released this month as an update to a September 2004 report, the Global Security Newswire reported Tuesday. The study projected an average $13 billion per year cost for missile defense through 2024, it said.

The Bush administration requested about $8.5 billion for the program last year for the current fiscal 2006, according to the report. The annual cost should climb rapidly to $19 billion by 2013, due to major equipment purchases, before dropping significantly to about $8 billion annually by 2024, it says. All figures are in 2006 dollars.

Administration officials have said they are pursuing a "layered" approach to missile defense, which involves developing multiple technological approaches to striking various ballistic missiles from land, sea, air and possibly space.

The report's projections also incorporate an assumption for the unexpected cost growth of the systems under development, based on historic cost-growth rates for major weapons systems since the Vietnam War. GSN said.

The report incorporates potential costs for the following major systems: Ground-based Midcourse Defense system interceptors and radars; nine low-orbit, infrared Space Tracking and Surveillance System satellites; a boost-phase kinetic energy interceptor system; seven Airborne Laser 747 aircraft; additional Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) short-range missile defense systems; and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) components.

The report also includes costs for the sea-based Aegis missile defense system under development, and space-based and mobile ground-based interceptor systems that are under early consideration. But it does not factor in the U.S. Air Force's troubled SBIRS-High early warning satellite program. They are intended for non-missile defense uses as well. Nor does the report specify how many ground-based, space-based, or sea-based systems it assumes will be purchased.

Victoria Samson, a Center for Defense Information missile defense analyst who released an analysis of the report last week, told GSN she believed the report, if anything, underestimated the probable cost of the administration's plans. "If they did everything they wanted to, reports have estimated it could run over a trillion dollars," she said, citing a 2003 report by prominent economists that drew such a conclusion.

The projected growth for missile defense costs corresponds with substantial overall Defense Department cost increases, according to the CBO report. Military funding reached $509 billion in fiscal 2005, including $74 billion in supplemental funding, it says.

The CBO report says the annual total could average about $522 billion a year through 2011 and $563 billion per year from 2012 through 2024, if historical cost growth and military expenditures to fight terrorists abroad are factored. That estimate, though, appears to assume that supplemental appropriations for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will end in Fiscal Year 2006.

--

General Dynamics wins $56 million Trident contract

General Dynamics has won a $56 million contract modification to provide operational support and engineering services for the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system. The contract may be worth $147 million if all options are exercised, the company said Monday.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems will be responsible for fire-control production, operational support and field engineering services for the Trident II Fire Control system. The unit also will handle repairs and returns, training, and system development. Advanced Information Systems will perform the work in Pittsfield, Mass, Washington Technology reported.

The contract also covers lifecycle cost control and technology refresh for the SSGN Attack Weapons Control Systems.

Global Hawk is designed and produced by Northrop Grumman.

"The Air Force is committed to bringing real-time reconnaissance information to the commanders and is confident that Global Hawk is the right high-altitude asset to provide persistent surveillance over the battlefield," commented Jerry Madigan, vice president of Northrop Grumman's High Altitude Long Endurance programs.

The two RQ-4A Global Hawks arrived at the operating base earlier this month. The deployment team began functional test flights of the two vehicles immediately upon arrival. The Global Hawks, their sensors and ground stations were all tested and performed to Air Force requirements before the deployment.

They joined a previously deployed Global Hawk test asset, designed and developed as part of the system's advanced concept technology demonstration phase. That air vehicle has logged more than 3,000 hours in combat during a total of approximately two years in theater.

Madigan added that during a combat situation, "Global Hawk can loiter over an assigned area for more than a day or can be re-tasked to gather information over hot spots at a moment's notice. Once the Global Hawk is over the specific area, commanders can view problem areas quickly and make crucial decisions within minutes."

Through three deployments in support of the war on terrorism, more than 250 missions and 5,000 combat flight hours have been logged by just three aircraft.

Global Hawk flies autonomously at an altitude of more than 60,000 feet, above inclement weather and prevailing winds, for more than 35 hours at a time. During a single mission, it can provide detailed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information in near-real time over 40,000 square miles – approximately the size of Illinois.