Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta can see a world in which the use of drones is no longer a staple in the United States’ counterterrorism toolkit, according to an interview with ABC News.

In a wide-ranging interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Panetta spoke on topics including Afghanistan, Syria, and the current crisis in Mali. When asked about whether he believes American civilians should know more about the use of drones by the Central Intelligence Agency, Panetta demurred. “I wish frankly that Americans you know, could really see what I’ve seen as director of the C.I.A. and now as Secretary of Defense in terms of our use of operations to go after those that have attacked our country,” Panetta said.

Panetta went on to defend the use of drones in going after Al Qaeda, while also leaving an opening for their eventual retirement as a cornerstone of that strategy:

PANETTA: And a key part of that has obviously been the use of the operations involving the drones that target those that are in the leadership in Al Qaeda. And that’s a reality. We’ve decimated their leadership as a result of those operations. So you know, my view of it is, you know, it’s not something that we’re going to have to continue to use forever. But it’s a very effective tool, it’s a very effective weapon at going after those who are enemies of the United States of America.

Watch the interview here:

Panetta’s statements echo those made by outgoing Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson, who has previously said that the so-called war on terror “shouldn’t be regarded as a perpetual war without any sort of end.” While Johnson’s comments earlier this month were based on a speech delivered in November at Oxford, they were expanded upon only after he left office. Panetta’s interview may come while he is heading for the exit, but he remains in charge of the Pentagon for the time being.

For now, though, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles — as drones are formally known — continues unabated, with a surge of strikes within Pakistan so far in 2013. Those numbers have not been acknlowedged by the U.S. government, however, as the CIA’s program remains classified. The secrecy surrounding the program was shown in Panetta’s notable lack of a response during the interview to Raddatz’s question, the continuation of a policy that lead to several major newspapers calling for more transparency. Even unarmed drones aren’t without their own controversy, exemplified in reaction to the announcement last week a fleet of surveillance drones are being sold to Afghanistan for use after the US ends its combat mission in 2014.

A new report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the United States spent over $6 million on maintaining vehicles that had already been destroyed in Afghanistan.

As part of the mission to train the Afghan National Security Forces, the Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan (CSTC-A) is charged with helping to equip the soldiers and set up a native Afghan logistics system. According to the report, the CTC-A signed a contract with the Automotive Management Services FZE (AMS) to provide maintenance for a fleet of ground vehicles for the Afghans, along with spare parts procurement and other mundane tasks associated with fighting in a war zone. The contract itself was for over $350 million dollars, with an additional authority to purchase up to thirty million dollars more worth of spare parts.

However, due to a lack of updates on when vehicles in that fleet were destroyed or no longer serviceable — and the inflexible nature of the contract — over the course of seventeen months, the U.S. paid $6.8 million for several unneeded “surges” in vehicles eligible for repair:

This amount includes payments to AMS totaling $6.3 million in five surges from April 2011 to September 2012. According to CSTC-A officials, the density list was based on the number of vehicles purchased for the ANP, but CSTC-A did not remove vehicles not seen for service in over a year or those vehicles confirmed by the contractor as destroyed. In addition to surge payments, we estimate CSTC-A spent at least another $530,000 on such vehicles during option year 1, and CSTC-A may pay more than necessary for future services.

The report is just the latest in a string of reports from the SIGAR that shine light on wasteful spending and unneeded delays in improving security measures in Afghanistan. In December alone, red flags were raised surrounding an inability to track cash flows out of Afghanistan traveling with “very important persons,” electronics valued at $12.8 million sitting in a warehouse with no plan for installation, and no accounting for $201 million worth of fuel purchased to support the Afghan National Army.

Time to correct these many issues is on the decline, as the U.S. readies to end combat operations in 2014. NATO members are still in discussion about the size of the force to be left behind after that period, with the White House having floated a “zero option” ahead of a visit from Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is currently travelling throughout Europe discussing these matters with key NATO allies.

Though the war in Iraq has ended and combat in Afghanistan is winding down, the cost of providing disability coverage to those who fought those battles has doubled since 2000, USA Today reports. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, granting adequate coverage to military veterans has ballooned in cost from $14.8 billion in 2000 to $39.4 billion in 2011. That number tracks with previous statistics that showed 45 percent of 1.6 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have sought disability benefits.

A large portion of that increase comes from more awareness of the benefits afforded to veterans — due to legislation since the Vietnam war — and a boost in the number of conditions covered by the VA, including PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. The result is a higher number of claims across the board for more conditions:

The average number of conditions compensated for each veteran has grown from 2.3 for the World War II generation to 3.5 for those from the Vietnam War to six for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA says.

About one in seven disabled veterans were rated more than 70% disabled in 2000; today, that ratio is more than one in four, data show. Average annual payouts per veteran have risen to $11,737 in 2011 — an increase of nearly 40% after adjusting for inflation.

USA Today charts the numbers:

The rise in disability costs in a time of potential budget cuts add to the difficulties veterans continue to face in transitioning from service to private life. The rising rate and complexity of their cases has caused a backlog for those seeking benefits from the VA, with the average case requiring over two hundred days to be resolved. Meanwhile, while veteran unemployment fell to its lowest number in the Obama presidency in August, the rate for post-9/11 veterans continues to be higher than the national average, impacting the strain on the VA benefits system.

Under a new military doctrine, Pakistan has now officially recognized that “homegrown militancy” is the top threat that the country faces, replacing neighboring India for the first time.

For decades, it has been an unofficial policy of Pakistan to cultivate ties with militant groups for use as proxies in battles against external enemies. These groups could be used in either direction across Pakistan’s border, to the west towards Afghanistan or to the east towards India. Among these, the Haqqani Network remains the perpetrator of some of the most deadliest attacks within Afghanistan, with Pakistan viewing the organization as a hedge towards retaining influence in the state as the United States prepares for a drawdown and eventual exit.

Likewise, the deadly coordinated Mumbai attacks of 2008, in which gunmen killed over 164 in a single day in India’s largest city, was conducted by terrorists on the order of and with assistance from Pakistan. In recent years, however, Pakistan has found itself plagued by similar terrorist organizations, including the Pakistani Taliban, which is recently responsible for shooting a young girl named Malala Yousafzai. For the Pakistani Army — which often exercises control of the state either through periodic coups or the so-called “deep state” — to label militants as the primary threat that the state faces is a momentous shift.

Despite this, the army attempted to play down the importance of the change in policy:

“Army prepares for all forms of threats. Sub-conventional threat is a reality and is a part of a threat matrix faced by our country. But it doesn’t mean that the conventional threat has receded,” Maj-Gen Asim Saleem Bajwa, the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) told The Express Tribune.

According to the BBC, the new Army Doctrine talks about unidentified militant groups and their role to create unrest in the country. It also mentions that Pakistani militants have found refuge across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

Since the partition of 1947, Pakistani leaders have believed that India posed the country’s greatest existential threat. The perceived threat was exacerbated by tensions over control of territory in the state of Kashmir, which was the cause of three of the four wars that the states have fought. While the new doctrine does not negate the premise that India is a threat, its downgrading could be the key to a lasting upgrade in relations between the two.

In the same way, tensions between the United States and Pakistan have often been the result of the latter’s ties to groups operating in Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan. The radio silence between the two during the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden was due to the belief within the United States that someone within Pakistan’s military with ties to militants would leak details of the attack. As a result, the raid caused a deep chill in U.S.-Pakistani relations.

The newly signed funding bill for the U.S. national security budget has a message for the White House: take more time before letting suspected terror detainees out of your sight.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress has approved provisions that hinder the Executive Branch’s ability to release and transfer detainees from the Parwan Base in Afghanistan. Specifically, Sec. 1025 of the legislation mandates that the Secretary of Defense conduct assessments and provide notification to Congress before transfer or release of third-party nationals captured in Afghanistan.

These assessments — required for each individual leaving U.S. custody — include an examination of a government’s ability to properly try or monitor the released captive, even if the detainee is being remanded to Afghan custody. Meanwhile, Sections 1027 and 1028 ban the use of funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States for trial and places similar restrictions on the transfer and release of detainees to other countries.

Despite threats to veto the bill, President Obama signed the FY13 NDAA on Wednesday night. In doing so, however, he also issued a “signing statement” delcaring that the Executive Branch believes portions of legislation to be void should it interfere with Constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. In particular, Obama’s signing statement focused on the detainee restrictions of the Act:

Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If Section 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict.

While an aide to a senior Senator said the FY2013 NDAA adds no additional requirements on the transfer or release of detainees, Hina Shamsi, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project agreed that Congress has further tied the Executive’s hands. “It makes it much harder to transfer people out who should be. It is the same problem as with Congress putting restrictions in the way of closing Guantanamo Bay, in that unlawful detention has weakened us from a national security perspective,” she said of the NDAA’s language. Shamsi went on to call the President’s signing statement “anemic,” noting that he should follow-through under whatever discretion he has under the law to “put teeth” into his declaration. The ACLU has long been outspoken against the detention polices of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Detention policy is returning to the spotlight amid reports that rendition — or the holding of suspected terrorists in third-countries — continues under the Obama administration. Likewise, attempts from the ACLU and New York Times to obtain memos laying out the criteria behind the so-called “kill list” were denied by a District Court judge on Wednesday, drawing renewed attention to the debate between killing and capturing suspected terrorists.

By Danielle Baussan

A group of retired high level U.S. military officers are calling on Congress to repeal an amendment to the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that they say interferes with efforts to prevent military suicides.

USA Today reported last month that 2012 was the worst year for military suicides since careful tracking began in 2001. A military suicide occurs about once every 80 minutes and most of these suicides are a spontaneous act committed with a private firearm. But medical professionals and commanding officers can’t even ask at-risk service members about concerns about suicide or whether a suicidal service member has a gun at home. That’s due to an FY 2011 NDAA provision, Section 1062, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that prevents any questions about firearms, even when a military member is thought to be considering suicide or a harm to others.

In a letter sent to Members of Congress last week, twelve retired military leaders, including Retired Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis of the U.S. Army, said Congress should repeal Inhofe’s measure as “an immediate step that can and must be taken now to save lives.” This is a clear call for action by military leaders who have seen the impacts of “suicide gag orders” firsthand.

Now, it’s up to Congress — really, the Senate — to make it happen. The New York Times quoted Inhofe supporting an amendment “if it clears up any confusion” about whether people can ask about weapons to prevent suicide. Earlier this year, the Republican-led House of Representatives cleared up that confusion, passing language in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to allow commanding officers and health officials to ask service members about suicidal thoughts and private guns.

So we’ve got the original sponsor on record supporting efforts to clarify the language, a House-passed NDAA that includes that language, and highly decorated military officials asking Congress for their help. And yet, there’s not one amendment in the current Senate version of the NDAA to help prevent military suicide.

It’s time for the Senate to take a stand and include some version of the House language in their NDAA. Leaving an issue like this on the cutting room floor does a disservice members of the U.S. military.

According to yesterday’s U.S. Army press release, up to 20 active-duty soldiers committed suicide during the month of October. The army includes confirmed suicides and cases of death in which suicide is suspected in its total. October’s numbers are slightly higher than the numbers for the previous month, during which 15 active-duty members of the army are suspected to have committed suicide.

So far this year, 166 active-duty soldiers may have committed suicide. If all 166 cases are confirmed, then the number has already surpassed last year’s total of 165 confirmed active-duty army suicides. The news indicates that the army’s long-running struggle with suicide is tragically escalating.

Earlier this year, the army attempted to combat the epidemic through the use of social media outlets like Facebook to reach out to army members. They’ve also created an app aimed at army members who have contemplated suicide. The app, according to its creator Dr. Nigel Bush, “has the photos, it might have sound messages from loved ones, it might have videos of family trips and so on.”

More conventional strategies like presentations, which the army has also utilized, have been criticized. One Dartmouth professor and expert on suicide told NPR earlier this year, “They call this kind of training ‘death by PowerPoint’…what they might not be as informed about are some individual strategies that they can take to maybe cope better with the situation at hand.” According to the New York Times, “nearly half of all suicides in the military having been committed with privately owned firearms.” Strategies like encouraging “friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or voluntarily remove personal firearms from their homes” have also been suggested.

TIME magazine detailed the rise of suicides in the army in August:

“Suicides have spiked since 2005, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the conflict in Afghanistan begins to wind down. The drip-drip-drip of statistics tells the story: mental-health problems were the top reason troops were hospitalized last year, according to a May Pentagon report. Nearly 22,000 troops were hospitalized with mental disorders last year, 54% more than in 2007.”

Earlier this year, a high-ranking army official wrote, “Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army.” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has described suicide in the army as “one of the most frustrating problems.”

If you didn’t know better, you would think at times in the third and final debate that Governor Mitt Romney was actually an Obama campaign surrogate. For someone who once said, “This is the first time we’ve had a president that doesn’t have a foreign policy,” Romney agreed in part or in totality with an astonishing number of the President’s policies.

“I don’t blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained,” Romney said, later adding that “the president was right to up the usage” of drones.

From Iran to Afghanistan to China, Romney attempted to swing to a much more moderate position on many of the foreign policies under debate and in doing so, put himself in conflict with his previous statements:

AL QAEDA

ROMNEY NOW: We’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda.

ROMNEY THEN: “I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours [Pakistan]” to get bin Laden. [8/06/2007]

IRAN

ROMNEY NOW: I laid out seven steps, crippling sanctions were number one. And they do work. You’re seeing it right now in the economy. It’s absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions. I would have put them in place earlier. But it’s good that we have them.

ROMNEY THEN: But nothing in my view is as serious a failure as [President Obama's] failure to deal with Iran appropriately. This president — this president should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not. [02/22/2012]

AFGHANISTAN

ROMNEY NOW: We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful and the training program is proceeding apace. There are now a large number of Afghan Security Forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we’re going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014.

ROMNEY THEN: I stand with the commanders in this regard and have no information that suggests that pulling our troops out faster than that would do anything but put at — at great peril the extraordinary sacrifice that’s been made. This is not time for America to cut and run. [11/22/2011]

CHINA

ROMNEY NOW: We can be a partner with China. We don’t have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. We can work with them, we can collaborate with them, if they’re willing to be responsible.

ROMNEY THEN: [W]e should not fail to recognize that a China that is a prosperous tyranny will increasingly pose problems for us, for its neighbors, and for the entire world. [2/16/12]

During last night’s debate, Romney “had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost,” a New York Times editorial noted this morning. “That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues. … Mr. Romney’s problem is that he does not actually have any real ideas on foreign policy beyond what President Obama has already done, or plans to do.”

A top Romney foreign policy advisor has indicated that Mitt Romney intends to incorporate war spending into his military budget even after 2014, when American troops are set to be out of Afghanistan. Speaking at a debate last night at the Military Reporters and Editors Association Conference in D.C., Dov S. Zakheim, a former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration at one point incredulously claimed that Romney’s plan for Pentagon spending actually is a reduction in current rates.

Romney has advocated pegging military spending to 4 percent of GDP in the past, an increase of $2 trillion over ten years. Zakheim confirmed that 4 percent “is indeed Governor Romney’s policy. Full stop.”

When asked to explain the math behind his claim of reduction, Zakheim said Romney will keep incorporate war spending into the baseline budget even after the war in Afghanistan comes to a close:

ZAKHEIM: Here’s the point. The Overseas Contingencies Operations (OCO) account is essentially driven by Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is gone. And Afghanistan is being drawn down. [...] In which case that account, because it is driven by operations, comes down. The point though is you’ll still be taking some of that that money, there are billions of dollars in that account that really have a long-term implication and they’re not purely driven by Afghanistan operations. So you would move that into the baseline. So in theory, you would come down from 4.2 percent to 4 percent.

Prior to the development of the the Overseas Contingencies Operations budget, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were primarily funded by supplemental bills, outside of the normal budgetary process, driving up the deficit. While OCO funding levels are now incorporated into the overall federal budget, they remain separate from normal appropriations in that the funding is not tied to any one Department.

Zakheim is right in determining that current military spending is at 4.2 percent of GDP, but only when OCO spending is incorporated. According to the Obama administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, OCO spending would be reduced to $96 billion, compared to about $112 billion in FY 2012. Those spending levels are currently predicted to fall much further after the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2014. Under Romney, they would instead become the new normal.

Michelle Flounroy, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under the Obama administration, repeatedly pressed Zakheim on how Romney would pay for the sustained increase and goals such as ramped up shipbuilding. Zakheim responded that the OCO accounts transfer, along with greater efficiencies at the Pentagon and an improved economy under a Romney administration would provide for the funding required. In other words, the Romney campaign still cannot offer specifics on how a Romney administration plans to pay for this massive increase in military spending.

Mitt Romney, who has had trouble differentiating his foreign policy agenda from President Obama’s, gave a speech at the Virginia Military Institute that was designed to draw a contrast between his position and the President’s. Despite some sharp rhetorical criticism, however, Romney failed to develop new policy ideas that were meaningfully distinguishable from current Administration policy. The lack of meaningful difference was particularly evident on four issues:

1. Afghanistan. Romney pledged he would “will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.” This is precisely the same position the current Administration takes. Romney surrogates have been unable to point to one specific difference between Obama and Romney on our largest ongoing war.

2. Syria. Romney endorsed providing military aid through relevant third party states: “I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.” The Obama Administration has already approved the provision of assistance to Syrian rebels through friendly Arab states.

3. Iran. Romney said he would “put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.” President Obama said that “four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And that is what we have done.” Romney also pledged to “restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region,” but the US is already maintaining a carrier group in the Gulf.

4. Free trade. Romney, arguing that “The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years,” pledged to increase a push toward trade agreements. Obama has signed new free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, and Romney didn’t specify what new agreements would be passed in a Romney Administration.

Indeed, much of Romney’s speech — like his pledge to “tighten the sanctions [on Iran] we currently have” — were too vague to constitute meaningful promises to make policy shifts. This is in keeping with Romney’s general “doesn’t want to really engage” view about challenging the President’s policy record on international affairs.