The following blog originally appeared at ThinkProgress.
The Trayvon Martin case has gripped the nation, and forced the country to re-examine our gun laws. But the horrible affair has struck me in another way, because of my two tours in Iraq. One fact stands out in my mind: The "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, which may let George Zimmerman off the hook for the killing of Martin, gives more leeway to shooters than our own military gives to soldiers in war.
VoteVets.org has more than 105,000 members who take a wide array of views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment, but the Trayvon Martin case is less about the right to bear arms than it is the "use of force." It's impossible to ignore the legal protection George Zimmerman enjoys in suburban Florida vs. the Rules of Engagement that outline when one of our troops can shoot while in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The U.S. military issues Rules of Engagement (ROE) for every conflict to guide servicemembers' ability to protect themselves from deadly threats while responding only with the necessary and proportionate level of force in a dangerous situation. The Rules of Engagement for Operation Iraqi Freedom laid out a clear set of steps that U.S. forces must take, up to and including deadly force if necessary, when responding to a threat or hostile act.
A key component of the ROE used during the height of violence in Iraq in 2007 was the requirement to use "Graduated Force" when time and circumstances permit. Section 3.G.(1) states that if an individual "commit[s] a hostile act or demonstrat[es] hostile intent" - meaning he or she attacks U.S. or designated allied forces, nationals, or property, or threatens the imminent use of force against any of them - U.S. Force "may use force, up to and including deadly force, to eliminate the threat." However, the rule also explicitly instructs forces, "when time and circumstances permit," to use the following "graduated measures of force" when responding to hostile act or hostile intent:
3.G.(1)(A) (U) Shout verbal warnings to halt;
3.G.(1)(B) (U) Show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
3.G.(1)(C) (U) Physically restrain, block access, or detain;
3.G.(1)(D) (U) Fire a warning shot (if authorized);
3.G.(1)(E) (U) Shoot to eliminate the threat.
This rule laid out a code of conduct that troops in Iraq adopted and employed in high-risk hostile situations. We were trained to respond to a threat by quickly assessing its level and urgency and, where time and circumstances permit, to "Shout - Show - Shove - Shoot." As the shorthand makes clear, we approached threats with a clear set of steps to take before firing a weapon. The bottom line goal was always to minimize unnecessary deaths.
These rules are enforced: using deadly force after failing to follow this procedure leads you open to charges of manslaughter and a court-martial.
In fact, Richard Allen Smith, the vice chairman of VoteVets.org, recently told me a story he had heard during his time in Afghanistan, which illustrates this point.
The Scout Platoon leader for Richard's Battalion was in a situation in 2007 where they detained someone, but he managed to get out of their truck and flee. While he was running away, the Platoon Leader fired at him and caught him in the thigh. They called for a medevac, but he bled out before the bird could get there.
Under military law and rules of engagement, the Platoon Leader was clearly in the wrong: he pursued an unarmed guy who wasn't posing a threat to U.S. Forces and shot him to death. He was charged (although he was never tried because he was injured a few days later when his truck was hit by an IED and he was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial).
Of course, comparing the Trayvon Martin case to a war situation is neither fair nor clean, and we still don't know all of the facts surrounding Trayvon's death. But insofar as what I've read about the case, it sounds to me that if Trayvon had been an Iraqi soldier, and George Zimmerman had been a U.S. Soldier, there would have been an immediate investigation, and most likely a manslaughter charge, and victim's family financially compensated for wrongful death.
But Zimmerman is a civilian in Florida where, as the country now knows, a shooter is often immune from criminal prosecution and civil liability if he believed he had been threatened with deadly force. One of the striking components of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law - or, more appropriately, "Shoot First" law - is that it eliminated the "duty to retreat" embedded in centuries of common law about self-defense. Traditionally, a person had the duty to retreat from dangerous situations if they could, and the use of deadly force was justifiable self-defense only if a person could not have otherwise safely gotten away.
In this way, the common law shared the underlying values of the Rules of Engagement: it is always preferable to de-escalate potentially violent situations before someone is killed. Florida's "Shoot First" law - and the 24 other states that passed similar laws since 2005 - abandons that core de-escalation principle and allows an individual not only to "shoot first," but to shoot faster than a member of the U.S. military would in a war zone.
If a soldier or marine faces an imminent threat, he or she must take the procedural steps of employing Graduated Force, and if they don't, they may be criminally liable. By eliminating both the duty to retreat and by providing blanket immunity for a shooter who claims he felt reasonably threatened, Florida's "Shoot First" law seems to me to be exponentially more lax than the law that guides our troops in a war.
In a war zone, troops are surrounded by potential threats, and it's easy to misread a situation or jump to conclusions. But the military doesn't let one of our troops just say, "I thought someone was threatening," as an excuse for shooting someone to death outside of a firefight. The presumption remains that, if time and circumstances allowed, they should have taken preliminary steps to avoid a deadly confrontation. A deadly shooting still calls for an investigation, and if the evidence suggests that the shooter did not employ Graduated Force and that a reasonable person would not have resulted to deadly force, the shooter will be taken to a court martial. Even the presence of a weapon in many cases since AK47s are readily available isn't enough alone to justify deadly force without the intent to use the weapon with hostile intent.
Even in a war zone, Americans operate according to rules that seek to minimize deadly violence, and Americans who seem to deviate from those rules are subject to fact-finding and accountability in our military justice system. Our troops are trained on the escalation of force but our contractors weren't validated by our military training, causing huge legal issues for our country with the Iraqi government.
I was shocked to learn what goes for the military and half the states in America is no longer the case in Florida and the two dozen other states with new "Shoot First" laws. Zimmerman has so far avoided arrest by simply claiming that he felt threatened by Trayvon, regardless of whether that was an objectively reasonable response to the situation or if he took steps to avoid a deadly confrontation.
As an Iraq veteran watching this national story unfold, I am finding it hard not to conclude that Florida's law gives people much more leeway to shoot someone than our own military gives to our troops in war. That is something worth thinking about as this case moves forward.
Last week, Congressman Joe Walsh denigrated the years of service his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, has given this nation. It was a new low for the guy who is a dead-beat dad.
In an interview with Politico, Rep. Walsh said of Duckworth, "What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran ... ehhh.... She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel just picked her up and dropped her into this district."
He was called out for this remarks by VoteVets.org, which has endorsed Duckworth. In a statement, I said that it wasn't that he was insulting a woman who literally gave her limbs in service to America, but that he completely dismissed her years of service to America after serving in war.
"If you think working for America's veterans at the VA both in Washington and Illinois is nothing, if you think working to improve the economic lives of veterans is nothing, then Joe Walsh's record is below nothing. He represents the do-nothing, obstructionist, extreme Tea Party wing of the GOP, not the values that Tammy stood up for," my statement read.
Well, yesterday, Joe Walsh doubled-down on his comments about Tammy. In a statement released by his campaign, Walsh said, "I will also reiterate what I said last week, which was that I, and people of the 8th district, want to know what Tammy has done in addition to her service, and where she stands on the issues. Wearing the uniform should immediately earn everyone's respect. It should not, however, earn everyone's vote."
What else has she done? Either Joe Walsh doesn't know anything about Tammy Duckworth (which I don't think is the case), or he's out to denigrate the hard work Tammy has done for veterans since returning home.
Tammy Duckworth helped establish the Intrepid Foundation, to help her fellow wounded veterans.
In 2006, she was appointed the head of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, where she:
• Established first Veterans Caucus for the Illinois General Assembly
• Created a tax credit for Illinois businesses who hire OEF/OIF/Desert Storm Veterans. Hundreds of Veterans have been hired throughout the state with this tax credit.
• Started up a 24 hour crisis hotline for Veterans. It was the first in the nation - even the federal VA was not offering the service 24 hours a day at that point.
• Created the VetsCash grant program that has given out over $10 million in grants including critical support to establish the John Marshall Law School's Veterans Assistance Legal clinic and the Midwest Shelter for homeless Veterans.
• Established the nation's first state health insurance program for Vets
• Created the GI Loan for Heroes program that Distributed over $30 million in homeloans from state or IL.
In 2009, she was brought into the Department of Veterans Affairs on the Federal level, as Assistant Secretary. There, she:
• Asked to serve as lead on the President's initiative to eliminate homelessness among Veterans. That required working with agencies throughout the government from the Pentagon, to HHS, to HUD, to Departments of Education and Labor. Her work led to not only the first-ever accurate accounting of the number of homeless Veterans but cut the number of them significantly.
• Created the Office of Online Communications to enhance and coordinate VA's social media outreach to the Veteran community. In this age of younger veterans, an effective online outreach program is essential - and Tammy created it at the VA.
• Created office of Tribal Government relations, to help bring services to Native American Veterans isolated on tribal lands.
• Was asked to be the top official on the White House Initiative on Asian American and Pacific Islanders - especially concerned with bullying issues.
So, Tammy's record in and out of government is significant. Joe Walsh knows this. He has to know this. It's why he's running so scared from Tammy, and dismissing her service, and trying to pretend that her service ended when she came home from war.
But, like I said before, if the record above is insignificant, then Joe Walsh is beneath insignificant. He's stood lockstep with the Tea Party wing of the GOP, which has done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Americans, or boost the economy. And, what's worse, that wing of the party is responsible for the Paul Ryan budget, which would cut VA funding by 11 billion dollars and end Medicare, which so many wounded veterans rely on for their primary care.
Given that, it's no wonder Joe Walsh would rather attack a wounded veteran than stand up for his own record.
This afternoon, Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz appeared on MSNBC's NewsNation with Tamron Hall to discuss Veterans' employment. Watch:
Do Republicans care about keeping our promise to veterans?
Looking at the recently released GOP budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan, it's hard to see how they do. In fact, looking at the nearly 100 page document, the word "veteran" doesn't appear once. Not once.
Today is the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Last night, I spoke with someone who served with me in Iraq during my first tour. And for the first time in almost nine years, she wanted to talk to me about an incident where she drove through an IED and a soldier was killed. It was a profound moment that shows how war and sacrifice stay with us, always. For those of us who served, in many ways, yesterday is today. And today, we read that the GOP doesn't even talk about veterans in their budget.
But, without saying the word "veteran," the budget tells us a lot about what they think about veterans. The budget calls for across the board spending freezes and cuts. If enacted, the Ryan GOP budget would cut $11 billion from veterans spending, or 13 percent from what President Obama proposes in his own plan.
It's unconscionable that they'd do this at a time when so many Iraq veterans have just come home and rely on veterans care. Over 45,000 US troops were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more will come who will rely on VA services, on top of veterans of other wars and eras who depend on the VA. But, this shortsightedness isn't new.
Back in 2005, President Bush underfunded the Department of Veterans Affairs by about a billion dollars, despite its need. The result? Secretary Jim Nicholson was forced to crawl before Congress and plead with it to pass emergency supplemental spending, just so it could keep the doors open. After that debacle, I have to admit, I never thought Republicans would do the same thing again, if for no other reason than that it just looks bad politically, leaving aside the horrible effect it would have on veterans in need.
Additionally, after the backlash against ending Medicare the last time Paul Ryan released a budget, they're at it again. That, too, affects veterans. I was speaking with one veteran in Missouri, who lost both of his legs in Iraq. His entire primary care now relies on Medicare. It pays for all of his primary care, as it does for so many veterans with 100 percent disability. So, no, I couldn't believe that Paul Ryan and the GOP would again propose ending Medicare.
Yet, here we are. A budget from the GOP that short changes veterans, horribly. And where does that money go? Not to reducing the debt. The debt as a share of GDP would actually increase under the Ryan plan. The money doesn't go towards anything, really. But it does go towards some people. As in $3 trillion in tax giveaways to the richest Americans and corporations. People like Mitt Romney, who already pays a tax rate lower than most of our troops.
That's the choice the Ryan plan presents to America -- do we want to fund the wealthiest Americans and corporations, or keep our promise to our veterans? Ryan and the GOP say the former. I can't believe that most Americans wouldn't say the latter.
Do Republicans care about keeping our promise to veterans?
Looking at the recently released GOP budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan, it's hard to see how they do. In fact, looking at the nearly 100 page document, the word "veteran" doesn't appear once. Not once.
Today is the 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Last night, I spoke with someone who served with me in Iraq during my first tour. And for the first time in almost nine years, she wanted to talk to me about an incident where she drove through an IED and a soldier was killed. It was a profound moment that shows how war and sacrifice stay with us, always. For those of us who served, in many ways, yesterday is today. And today, we read that the GOP doesn't even talk about veterans in their budget.
But, without saying the word "veteran," the budget tells us a lot about what they think about veterans. The budget calls for across the board spending freezes and cuts. If enacted, the Ryan GOP budget would cut $11 billion from veterans spending, or 13 percent from what President Obama proposes in his own plan.
It's unconscionable that they'd do this at a time when so many Iraq veterans have just come home and rely on veterans care. Over 45,000 US troops were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more will come who will rely on VA services, on top of veterans of other wars and eras who depend on the VA. But, this shortsightedness isn't new.
Back in 2005, President Bush underfunded the Department of Veterans Affairs by about a billion dollars, despite its need. The result? Secretary Jim Nicholson was forced to crawl before Congress and plead with it to pass emergency supplemental spending, just so it could keep the doors open. After that debacle, I have to admit, I never thought Republicans would do the same thing again, if for no other reason than that it just looks bad politically, leaving aside the horrible effect it would have on veterans in need.
Additionally, after the backlash against ending Medicare the last time Paul Ryan released a budget, they're at it again. That, too, affects veterans. I was speaking with one veteran in Missouri, who lost both of his legs in Iraq. His entire primary care now relies on Medicare. It pays for all of his primary care, as it does for so many veterans with 100 percent disability. So, no, I couldn't believe that Paul Ryan and the GOP would again propose ending Medicare.
Yet, here we are. A budget from the GOP that short changes veterans, horribly. And where does that money go? Not to reducing the debt. The debt as a share of GDP would actually increase under the Ryan plan. The money doesn't go towards anything, really. But it does go towards some people. As in $3 trillion in tax giveaways to the richest Americans and corporations. People like Mitt Romney, who already pays a tax rate lower than most of our troops.
That's the choice the Ryan plan presents to America -- do we want to fund the wealthiest Americans and corporations, or keep our promise to our veterans? Ryan and the GOP say the former. I can't believe that most Americans wouldn't say the latter.
A couple of days ago, I said that the events over the last couple months - the murder of 16 innocent Afghans by a Soldier, the burning of Korans, and desecration of dead bodies - meant counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan have failed and President Obama had to end them.
Today, things only got worse, for three reasons.
First, Afghan President Karzai issued a statement calling on all NATO forces to pull out of Afghan villages. It's a move, if implemented, that would effectively end counter-insurgency operations and make NATO forces move towards an Advise, Train, and Assist (ATA) role, much like the one in Iraq in 2011.
In his statement, Karzai said, "Not a single foreign soldier should enter Afghan homes, and the entire attention should switch to the country's reconstruction and economic assistance... Afghanistan is right now ready to completely take all security responsibilities, so we demand a speedy transition and the hand-over of responsibility to the Afghans."
Now, this could be posturing by Karzai. It's possible that it isn't what he really wants, but feels that as his people turn against Americans, it is something he has to call for. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't matter. Counter-insurgency operations' entire purpose is to provide security for the population so services can be rendered by government and peace can be brokered with the opposition. It absolutely, positively requires the support of the indigenous government.
Karzai's statement calls that support into serious doubt, making counter-insurgency even more difficult than it was right after the killing of Afghan innocents just a few days ago. It quite possibly renders any counter-insurgency success impossible.
Secondly, and relatedly, talks with the Taliban have been suspended, meaning a core purpose of counter-insurgency is now on the ropes. While it seems that preconditions for talks were the reason for the suspension, there can be no doubt that the death of innocent Afghans influenced the Taliban's decision to halt talks. If there can be no negotiations with the Taliban to bring them into the fold, then there is absolutely no purpose - no goal - for counter-insurgency.
And finally, and underreported, are riots in the street over American immunity, and calling for it to end. That is an unacceptable condition - we can never allow US troops to be tried in a foreign court. And yet, the Afghan people are pressuring the Afghan government to call for it. This is important, because it was the hot issue when I was in Iraq in 2011. Iraqi President Maliki refused any immunity for US troops if there was going to be an extension of troops post-2011, because of his own domestic political pressure. And that issue - largely - was the reason why the US could not negotiate an extension of our troop presence there.
In Afghanistan, the issue may, once again, scuttle any long-term arrangement between Afghanistan and the West, meaning that a withdrawal from the Afghan democracy will come much sooner rather than later. It also puts in danger any negotiated counter-terror mission, which would require immunity for US forces. In the meantime, however, wrangling over troop immunity makes it much more difficult for our troops to operate because, again, it means we do not have the full support of the people.
President Obama has a lot of issues to weigh, but I really hope he sides with the American troops on the ground. They're now being asked by our government to provide security to a population in a mission that is no longer wanted by the democratically elected leader of that country, making their current mission untenable and unproductive. Therefore, the only conclusion he can come to is to engage US forces in a mission that can be successful. And that is an immediate transition to an ATA role, on the way towards a negotiated counter-terror mission with a very limited footprint
The counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan has failed, and it is time for President Obama to abandon it.
In the wake of the horrific incident where a US soldier killed 16 innocent Afghans, and just weeks after American Marines were caught on tape desecrating the body of a dead enemy, and a pile of Korans were burned, that much is clear. After these three incidents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's core argument that NATO Forces aren't an occupier and only in the country for security has been undermined.
This means that not only is he losing the trust of his own people, but the Afghan people are increasingly seeing Americans as the enemy, not friends. There were violent protests in the aftermath of the Koran burnings, in which 30 people died, and American troops were met with hostility. Following the killing of Afghan innocents this weekend, it came as no surprise that the Taliban called for retribution. But, more noteworthy was the Afghan parliament passing a resolution condemning the "brutal and inhuman act." The only way Karzai can regain support is to stand up against Americans, which is what his people clearly want.
Without the support and trust of the Afghan people and their government, counter-insurgency has failed and is pointless to continue. Its entire purpose is to provide security for the population so services can be rendered by government and peace can be brokered with the opposition. This is something most right-wing pundits directly assault when they stand against apologizing for burning Korans, and defending the desecration of the dead. They don't understand our mission when they can support actions the incite violence against our military.
It is important to note that this is certainly not reflective of all of our men and women in uniform. 99.99 percent of them act honorably, and carry out their missions without doing anything wrong. So, this isn't a failure of our military. But it is, however, a failure of our strategy.
I opposed the surge of troops into Afghanistan when it was announced by President Obama in 2010. I said then, and I'll repeat it again, that counter-insurgency on a timeline is pointless. Gaining the support of a people and securing a country like Afghanistan could take decades, and it certainly doesn't squeeze into any timeline. The troops were only one part of a solution. But that never took into consideration Pakistani influence or how corruption in the Karzai administration would affect a negotiated peace with the Taliban.
Now, a rising US deficit and sinking public support for the war make the strategy untenable. Our military is neither meant nor able to win over and secure an entire country, especially on a decades-long commitment combined with budget cuts. And now, when just a few of our troops make errors, part of the strategy comes crashing down. The more time we spend putting our men and women in a stressful and protracted counter-insurgency operation, the more we'll see a few bad apples screw everything up.
VoteVets.org has always supported a counter-terror mission in the region. Counter-terror operations target the enemy where they are, and take them out. It's the strategy that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaeda targets around the world. It costs less in money and lives. It doesn't deplete our troops and our military. And it doesn't put military men and women in the position of having to win over an entire country, under the real risk that a few bad troops could topple the entire house of cards. The past two months, body desecration, Quran burnings, and killings have now seriously put in jeopardy our ability to negotiate a counter-terror mission with the Afghan government, a mission we should have begun in 2010.
Some may say that counter-insurgency worked in Iraq, so it can work in Afghanistan. That isn't true. First, Iraq was a fairly modern nation, with an infrastructure, unlike Afghanistan. There wasn't nearly as much to build up. But secondly, and more importantly, it took the Sunni Awakening -- a revolt by the Sunni population against an insurgency -- to put Iraq on the path that ended with our redeployment. In short, Iraqis wanted it for themselves. There is absolutely no indication that Afghans are even close to that point. And we cannot know if they ever will be.
That all given, and given the increasingly antagonistic atmosphere being created in Afghanistan, it is time to employ a mission in Afghanistan that actually works, and leave a residual force in the region that focuses on destroying real threats to America. The sooner President Obama announces that, the better off our military and America will be.
As part of a settlement between 49 state Attorneys General and major lenders, President Obama announced today that troops and Vets who have been scammed by banks will be getting a break:
"It is unconscionable that members of the armed forces and their families have been some of the most susceptible to losing their homes due to the actions of unscrupulous banks and mortgage lenders," he said. "But over the last few years, that happened."
Under the plan, federal officials will review thousands of military mortgages started since 2006 for any irregularities. Troops or families who were illegally foreclosed upon would receive at least $116,000, plus thousands more in punitive payments from the banks.
In addition, troops who were wrongly charged interest in excess of 6 percent on their mortgages - in violation of federal protections for servicemembers - will be eligible for payments four times what they overpaid.
The payments are nice, and I applaud the current administration and for ensuring scammed troops and military families are made whole by the banks. But I'd also like to point out that no one has gone to jail over the financial scams that nearly destroyed our economy and ripped off service members in the process. If a Soldier robs a bank, he goes to jail. But if a bank robs a Soldier, they get to negotiate a settlement. Something isn't right there.
FEMALE VETERANS CALL FOR AMERICAN FORCES NETWORK TO DROP RUSH LIMBAUGH
Washington, DC - The largest progressive group of veterans in America, VoteVets.org, is today releasing a statement from three female Iraq war veterans calling on Rush Limbaugh's show to stop being broadcast by the American Forces Network (AFN). The veterans pointed to recent controversial statements made by Limbaugh about Sandra Fluke, and women who use birth control, calling them "sluts" and "prostitutes." AFN is owned and operated by the Department of Defense, funded with taxpayer dollars, and accessible to troops serving overseas.
Miranda Norman (who is a VoteVets.org Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations for the U.S. Air Forces in Europe at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany said the following:
"Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other - women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are "sluts" and "prostitutes" is beyond the pale. It isn't just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it's language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone - even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn't."
Founded in 2006, and backed by over 100,000 members, the mission of VoteVets.org is to use public issue campaigns and direct outreach to lawmakers to ensure that troops abroad have what they need to complete their missions, and receive the care they deserve when they get home. VoteVets.org also recognizes veterans as a vital part of the fabric of our country and will work to protect veterans' interests in their day-to-day lives. VoteVets.org is committed to the destruction of terror networks around the world - with force when necessary - to protect America. While non-partisan, the group is the largest progressive organization of veterans in America.
Earlier today, I got into a brief twitter debate with John Noonan, Communications Director for the House Armed Services Committee. The civil debate began when Noonan tweeted about budget sequestration in the Defense Department.
Over the previous several months, we have heard many Republican and Conservative pundits and elected leaders complain about DoD sequestration. And to be honest, it is a silly and intellectually dishonest complaint. The reason sequestration is even on the table is because Republicans wanted it. Yes, the legislation that would lead to sequestration come into being through a compromise that Republicans in Congress agreed to and voted for. To complain about a law they supported now would be comedy if we weren't seeing it play out in the sphere of public debate.
But there is a very simple solution if the GOP doesn't want the DoD budget to be sequestered. Sequestration only happens if statutorily required revenue adjustments aren't made. The problem is that Republicans in Congress, who supported this solution, are now attempting to renege. If you don't want the DoD budget sequestered, pass the revenue adjustments. It's that simple.
So here is my new rule: If you voted for sequestration if revenue adjustments are not made, you don't get to complain about sequestration when you refuse to implement revenue adjustments. A simpler version of this would be "Don't be a hypocrite," or "don't pretend the past didn't happen".
This isn't about ideology or whether the defense budget should be cut at all. Those are issues for another discussion. The issue here is that Republicans in Congress voted for something and are now attempting to be martyrs in opposition to it.
Pass the revenue adjustments or stop bitching about sequestration. It's that simple.
The Obama Justice Department has concluded that legislation banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.
[...]
As Holder writes, the benefits in question "include medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military identification cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries."
Repealing DADT was a great victory for equality and for the strength of our arms forces. But that was just the beginning. Ensuring that every service member is treated equally is the next step. Speaker Boehner will likely waste tax payer dollars to fight for a bigoted policy, but as a great man once said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Fox "News" contributor Liz Trotter thinks that women in the military ought to expect to be raped, and their male counterparts can't help but rape:
TROTTA: But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it's strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.
While it's not surprising that Fox News would allow Trotter on air to smear troops in an effort to push a political point on allowing women to do things they are already doing in combat, Trotter's low opinion of service members is kind of astonishing.
Liz Trotter clearly thinks that when brave women raise their right hands to defend our nation, they would be ignorant to think they will not be raped. Similarly, Trotter's comments smear male servicemembers as uncontrollable rapemongers who can't help but force themselves on their female comrades.
Maybe Liz Trotter doesn't understand much about the military. Even though she speaks as an expert, she's never worn the uniform for one day in her life. Someone should tell Liz Trotter that service members are trained to be of the highest moral character and integrity, and are quite capable of restraining themselves from raping their fellow troops. And for any female in uniform to be raped by one of her comrades is unacceptable, and not something to be expected.
The Pentagon is expected today to recommend that women be assigned to combat arms units at the battalion headquarters level:
Current rules bar women from serving in infantry, armor or special operations forces and don't allow women to be officially assigned below the brigade level.
Thursday's announcement is expected to keep those unit bans while calling for women to be officially assigned to jobs at the battalion level, which would doctrinally put them closer to combat areas.
While this may sound like big news, anyone that's deployed in the last ten years with an infantry battalion will tell you this simply codifies the status quo. Women have been serving in combat units since the beginning of post-9/11 conflict, albeit in an "attached" rather than "assigned" capacity. My unit (1-508 PIR) had a squad of female medics attached to us throughout our deployment. VetVoice alum Kayla Williams served as an interpreter with infantry units in OIF I. And during my deployment to Afghanistan, one of our sister battalions had in its ranks the first female Silver Star awardee in history.
Women have been fighting alongside combat units for over a decade now. This decision simply allows capable, competent war fighters to serve in the way they are most valuable without having to resort to clever paper work tricks.
As I come back from a few days of much needed vacation, I find that LTG Jerry Boykin is trying to act as if he never said things he actually said:
"You know this whole issue became such a distraction for the Army leadership, at a time when the Army needs to be focused on winning the war as well as taking care of troops and their families plus absorbing some significant cuts in the military budget and personnel," Boykin said. "I decided to remove this as a distracter for the Army leadership so I backed out of it and I think it was the right decision."
[...]
"I do stand in opposition to those who want to implement Sharia and essentially attack the constitution of the United States," Boykin said. "Those Muslims in America's Army that stand with the Constitution, I support them, and I think we all have to."
LTG Boykin is correct that his invitation to speak to West Point Cadets, including Muslim cadets, in a religious observance is an unneeded distraction given his past comments.
But for LTG Boykin to claim he stands with any Muslims, especially those in uniform, is simply a lie.
LTG Boykin has advocated the elimination of all Mosques from the United States.
LTG Boykin has argued that Islam is not protected under the first amendment.
LTG Boykin has stated that there can be no interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
LTG Boykin has implored Christians to "go on the offensive against Islam".
With this kind of history, for LTG Boykin to say he supports any Muslims in uniform is ridiculous. LTG Boykin is an ignorant, bigoted old man. And until he reverses those views, he has no business speaking about his religious views to our troops or cadets.
Four days ago, VoteVets began advocating for the United States Military Academy to withdraw its invite to Islamophobic retired Lieutenant General William G. Boykin to speak at their prayer breakfast event on February 8th. We sent a letter to West Point Superintendent LTG David Huntoon laying out our concerns and Boykin's history of bigoted comments directed at Islam and Muslims. This morning, we sent another letter to Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno with the same request. Also, we mobilized our grassroots network of over 100,000 Veterans, military families and supports who sent literally thousands of letters to GEN Odierno.
LTG (Ret) William Boykin has decided to withdraw speaking at West Point's National Prayer Breakfast on 8 February 2012. In fulfilling its commitment to the community, the United States Military Academy will feature another speaker for the event.
Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets Chairman gave the following statement:
This is why VoteVets exists - the calls from veterans, activists, and civil rights leaders around the country made this decision possible. I'm glad that the cadets will not be forced to hear the words of an anti-Muslim general whose rhetoric does not align with the values of our military and also endangers our troops in combat.
We thank GEN Odierno and LTG Huntoon, both men of competence and character, for upholding the Army Values and making the right decision for the cadets at USMA and our troops in the field.
Imagine that a man who said there should be no freedom of religion for Muslims, that there should be no Mosques in America, and that America is in a religious war that pits America, a "Christian Nation," against Islam was invited to address our men and women in uniform? Well, it's happening.
On Feb 8, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin has been invited to speak at a prayer breakfast at the Military Academy at West Point. He has said everything I wrote above. Here's a small selection:
"We need to recognize that Islam itself is not just a religion - it is a totalitarian way of life. It's a legal system, sharia law; it's a financial system; it's a moral code; it's a political system; it's a military system. It should not be protected under the First Amendment."
"No mosques in America. Islam is a totalitarian way of life; it's not just a religion."
Two reasons: First, because Boykin's comments are inconsistent with Army values -- the very values that are stressed at West Point and other Academies, and constantly reinforced as critical to the success and protection of US Forces in harm's way; and second, because Boykin's statements disrespect the service of the thousands of Muslim-Americans who have fought in uniform for America, and often died for America.
To the first point, Lt. Gen. Boykin's values are inconsistent with current Army doctrine that is taught at the Joint Readiness Training Center, National Training Center and the Combined Arms Center which instructs Army leaders to respect the Muslim culture as a part of counterinsurgency operations. This doctrine is taught there, and throughout the military, for good reason.
General David Petraeus has been a vocal advocate of the need for our society, and especially our armed forces, to build and maintain bridges of trust into the Muslim community in America and abroad. When an extremist in Florida sought to burn a Koran in a media stunt, Gen. Petraeus accurately stated that the act "would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence" and that "Such images could, in fact... put our troopers and civilians in jeopardy and undermine our efforts." The same could be said regarding Lt. Gen. Boykin's comments. Should the Army not reverse its invite to him to speak at West Point, it can only be seen as an endorsement of his comments by the Army.
To the second point, we received a very moving email over the weekend from a veteran from Iraq, who is Muslim. Shahriar Chowdhury, who was with the Army in Iraq from 2003-2004 wrote to us:
As a Muslim-American who served in Iraq as a Platoon Leader, I find it reprehensible that West Point would invite Lt. Gen. Boykin to speak to Cadets at a Prayer Breakfast when he openly calls for a ban on mosques in America, which are protected under the Constitution, and a host of other disturbing comments about Muslims. While I am typing this, I have a cousin who is on Active Duty in the Marines and is proud of his service. What does this say to him? What does this say to the thousands of Muslim-Americans who are serving in the United States military right now?
West Point says they will allow the Lt Gen. Boykin to speak so the Cadets can be exposed to differing views. That is beyond comprehension. Would West Point invite an individual who has denounced Christianity or Judaism the same way General Boykin has done with Islam?
It moved us, and brought the point home. Many graves of veterans and the fallen are marked with a crescent, the symbol of Islam. It is outrageous that these patriots would ever be smeared as anything antithetical to America. But that's what Lt. Gen. Boykin did, and will continue to do.
Lt. Gen. Boykin has a freedom of speech, and of course can spew whatever he wants. But, that doesn't mean that the Army has to grant him a venue to speak. In fact, they should not.
Update: It looks like cadets and faculty members at West Point are beginning to organize in protest. That's something that rarely, if ever, happens.
Update 2: Received an email release from the Forum on Military Chaplaincy protesting Boykin's appearance. It reads, in part:
"A prayer breakfast isn't an academic discussion, where controversial views can be challenged and debated," pointed out Tom Carpenter, former Marine and co-chair of the Forum. "Nor is it an appropriate place to present views, however cloaked, that disrespect those Muslims and gays who are honorably serving in the U.S. military.
"Chaplains are sworn to serve all in the military," said retired Chaplain (Colonel) Paul Dodd, co-chair of the Forum. Dodd served 31 years in the Army Chaplaincy, including a tour as Command Chaplain for the Army Medical Command.
"It sends a poisonous message to have chaplains sponsor someone so strongly associated with speech that condemns one particular religious group."
LTG William Boykin (Ret.) has a history of extremist and hateful views towards Muslims. As TP notes:
Here's what Boykin has said about Muslims in the past: there should be "no mosques in America"; Muslims worship an "idol"; "Islam is a totalitarian way of life, it's not just a religion"; "it should not be protected under the First Amendment"; Muslims operate "under an obligation to destroy our Constitution."
Earlier this week, VoteVets learned that LTG William Boykin (Ret.) had been invited to speak to cadets at the United States Military Academy during West Point's observance of the National Prayer Breakfast. LTG Boykin's comments are incompatible with Army values and our global security strategy. As such, today VoteVets sent a letter to USMA requesting that LTG Boykin's invite be retracted. See below:
VETERANS REITERATE CALL FOR ROMNEY TO RELEASE FULL TAXES
WASHINGTON, DC - Not satisfied with Mitt Romney's lack of complete disclosure on his taxes, the veterans of VoteVets.org, the largest progressive veterans organization in America, are reiterating their call for him to release his full tax records. This week, 7000 Americans, including thousands of veterans and military families, signed a petition to Romney, calling on him to do just that.
"Why won't Mitt Romney release all of his taxes? What's he hiding?" said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Seven thousand Americans, including thousands of veterans and military families have signed our petition asking him to do one simple thing - show us how much or how little you contributed to America, at a time when our troops went to war and paid a higher tax rate than you when they came home. Will he cut veterans benefits to pay to lower his taxes even more? Given Mitt Romney would like to lower taxes for him and other multi-millionaires like him, it's a fair question."
Soltz added, "Particularly disturbing are all of these off-shore accounts. While it seems that he and his accountant decided to pay taxes on those in 2010, what about the years before this campaign? While men and women were putting their lives on the line on the battlefield, and military members and retirees were paying a higher tax rate, was Mitt Romney trying to weasel his way out of paying taxes that care for those troops when they are in the field and come home?"
Founded in 2006, and backed by over 100,000 members, the mission of VoteVets.org is to use public issue campaigns and direct outreach to lawmakers to ensure that troops abroad have what they need to complete their missions, and receive the care they deserve when they get home. VoteVets.org also recognizes veterans as a vital part of the fabric of our country and will work to protect veterans' interests in their day-to-day lives. VoteVets.org is committed to the destruction of terror networks around the world - with force when necessary - to protect America. While non-partisan, the group is the largest progressive organization of veterans in America.
Last night, Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show last night to discuss why it is important to Veterans and Military Families that Mitt Romney releases his tax returns. Watch:
"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic."--Military Times
"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature."--Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire
"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration."--General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State
"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life."--Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)
"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq."--Booklist
". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle."--Publishers Weekly
". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq."--Bookmarks Magazine
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
