The US military refused to confirm details but a commander of the Taleban's hardline Haqqani faction said that his men had captured the soldier in the southeastern Paktika province, which borders Pakistan.
"One of our commanders named Mawlawi Sangin has captured a coalition soldier along with his three Afghan guards in Yousuf Khail district of Paktika province," the commander, named only Bahram, told the AFP news agency.
Also just saw a CNN report where Barbara Starr suggested the possibility that they would transport the soldier to Pakistan.
In another instance of a blogger doing the media's job for it, Steve Hynd has just written a piece at Newshoggers that should raise a lot of eyebrows. It's one of those pieces where, whichever side of the COIN debate you're on, you're sort of stopped mid-sentence by Steve's implications.
I'd provide excerpts, but you have to read the whole thing (though it's not long). Go read it here.
I am on the board of directors of the fantastic organization Grace After Fire. Grace aims to help women veterans in three primary ways: offering an online community for women veterans, educating providers on best practices for helping women veterans, and providing those women vets who need it with free inpatient treatment at top-notch private facilities.
The Grace After Fire forum is now live! Please pass this along to any woman vet you know who may benefit from having an online forum in which to share coping strategies post-deployment or post-service, tips on adjusting to civilian life, or struggles with larger problems. Women veterans, become a member today!
There's been some movement on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" front this week. On one hand, a military administrative board recommended that New York National Guardsman First Lt. Dan Choi be discharged for violating the policy. Via the AP:
Lt. Dan Choi would be the first New York National Guard member discharged for violating the policy against homosexual conduct, said Lt. Col. Paul Fanning, a spokesman for the New York Army National Guard.
Choi, 28, appeared in Syracuse before a Federal Recognition Board, a panel of four military officers, which deliberated four hours before deciding to recommend the Army no longer recognize him as an officer. In essence, that amounts to a discharge, Fanning said.
I'm not really sure what choice the board had, however. The law is clear. But this relates to the other development this week. For the first time, the Defense Department is proactively exploring ways that would give the department a choice. The AP has this one, too:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.
"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.
The defense chief, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.
For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.
"That's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.
If we can just get past the few dead-enders high up in the ranks who oppose a repeal, we'll get this thing done.
Over the past few years, I've spent a lot of time talking and writing about gaps in the care available to servicemembers and veterans, and what could be done to improve things. So I'm very happy to be able to write about my experience at a facility that seems to be doing a great job.
Several years ago, I went to the DC VA hospital, and found the experience stressful and upsetting: it was difficult to find my way around, no one seemed to quite know where to send me, and care seemed cursory (though adequate).
Yesterday I went to the VA hospital in Martinsburg, WV in hopes of getting specialty care that my health insurance will not cover; they scheduled me for initial appointments at their OIF/OEF Integrated Care Clinic. The facility was easy to find and had plentiful parking. In the lobby, a women's bathroom was immediately visible and did include a changing table. The cafeteria was open and staffed with helpful, friendly employees. Although the majority of veterans in the hospital were much older men, being in a clinic dedicated to OIF/OEF veterans meant that I saw other vets my age, which made me feel less out of place.
Although I arrived early to my appointment, I was seen immediately. Unlike stories I've heard from female vets about other locations, no one questioned my status as a veteran. I got a thorough exam by a doctor, and sat down with a social worker and psychologist. The questions I was asked (standard/required) showed that they are alert to the possibilities of exposure to toxins, TBI, PTSD, and MST. Staff walked me from one appointment to the next, and physically showed me where the lab, x-ray areas, and Women's Clinic are located.
The social worker asked what my plans were for the 4th of July, noting that many vets don't like fireworks (join the FB group "I'm a combat vet and I hate fireworks," started by my husband!). She not only ensured that I knew what services are available for me and my family, but also gave me the names and phone numbers of individual contacts. She confirmed that the VA does cover the specialty care I need, and will help schedule my follow up appointments.
A few negatives: The OIF/OEF Integrated Care Clinic is currently co-located with the Outpatient Mental Health Clinic. I asked about this, since some would find that quite off-putting; it is due to space limitations caused by ongoing construction to improve the facility. No one asked for any identification until I got blood drawn, and I do think they should have confirmed that I am me before initiating care. Some areas, especially latrines, were less clean than I would like to see (especially in a hospital!). And of course, I know that the plural of anecdote is not data: others may have had profoundly different experiences at this facility.
Overall, however, the Martinsburg VA's Integrated Care Clinic is a great model for making sure that OIF/OEF veterans are thoroughly evaluated and made aware of all the resources and benefits available to them. Staff were sensitive, understanding, and very aware of what all veterans (not just combat arms guys) of these conflicts are likely to have experienced. Through continued advocacy and oversight, I hope that all facilities will soon provide the same standard of care.
They're celebrating in Baghdad--which is good--but pessimism is still bubbling just beneath the surface. People like Tom Ricks--who sees an unraveling--and Jon Soltz have written in the last 24 hours about how the whole thing could come apart if the withdrawal goes poorly.
I think there's a solid chance that happens. But I'm hoping, instead, that the reality is more akin to that described by one of Ricks' readers--a marine who's currently just west of Baghdad:
Despite recent reporting, the area is stable, while still not completely safe. The attacks mentioned in the article are not part of a mounting trend, but are normal and to be expected from time to time in this environment. If we want Iraq to return to normal it will necessarily mean making itself more vulnerable to these kinds of attacks.
But we have taken it as far as Americans can. In my opinion, anything we do now may do more harm than good in delaying the inevitable and reinforcing their, at times, crippling malaise. The only enduring role for Americans is to provide the safety net to prevent complete collapse, chaos, and civil war; three things that I do not believe will happen in any event."
So I guess we'll find out. But regardless of whether the place is primed to implode or not, I think at this point, most people connected to the conflict can agree with the marine: We've taken it as far as Americans can.
UPDATE: Here's some analysis today on MSNBC from Jon Soltz and others:
BAGHDAD -- A car bomb exploded in a crowded outdoor market in the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, killing at least 27 people, police said, a deadly reminder of the challenges facing the Iraqi government even as it celebrated the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from cities.
The bombing marred what had otherwise been a festive day as Iraqis commemorated the newly declared National Sovereignty Day with military parades and marching bands. It also came hours after four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat Monday in Baghdad.
On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives held a moment of silence for the Man in the Mirror. Okay. Fine. But do they hold a moment of silence each time a service member they've sent to Iraq or Afghanistan dies in combat? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
In early July the Army will conduct a 90-day online test using seven existing manuals that every soldier, from private to general officer, will have the opportunity to read and modify in a "wiki"-style environment.
The people who write doctrine say that with things changing so fast in the field, it has been hard to keep the Army's 550 manuals up to date and relevant.
By letting the entire Army update the manuals, they say, more and better information can go out to a wider population of soldiers.
"The reality is that a lot of our doctrine simply has not kept up with the needs of the field, and a lot of the information being used right now is in local area networks being run by units that are deployed," said Clint Ancker, director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
Unfortunately, in stereotypical Army fashion, they're weighing it down with unnecessary rules and stipulations that will eventually make the new wiki manuals useless--or at least not better than their printed counterparts--because no one will want to take the time to participate.
Those who want to participate will be required to establish a profile at the test site, which is scheduled to be launched in the first week of July. On the site, they will be known by their name, rank and unit.
This is an important bad idea. It's antithetical to what a wiki even is. The whole idea behind a wiki is that ideas are judged on their merit alone--regardless of who's doing the writing. And to facilitate that, less qualified (or, in this case, lower ranking) people who might have good ideas are encouraged to participate. However, when you force people to identify themselves in a forum where they're being asked to critique--or criticize--most lower-level people will either choose not to participate or they'll be considerably less honest with their feedback.
Imagine an auditorium on post filled with 500 recently-returned soldiers of all ranks. A three-star general stands on stage, eyeing the group, and says he wants honest feedback about what worked down range and what didn't. The only thing he asks is that before the soldier gives his feedback, the soldier should stand up and identify himself with his "name, rank, and unit." At this point, of course, seasoned platoon sergeants lean forward in their seats and look down the line at their soldiers.
Does anyone envision an E-4 standing up--without having his suggestion vetted by his chain of command--and giving advice to the general officer and the rest of the BCT?
Me neither. Even though that E-4 might have a great idea.
But this isn't the first time the Army has disallowed individuals from submitting ideas without disclosing their identities. Take this post from an administrator at the USACAC blog directed toward an anonymous commenter named "Critical Realist":
Critical Realist,
Appreciate your input. However, we are attempting to ensure those who participate in this blog either sign in using their name, or sign their posts. This ensures users are in compliance with CAC Blog rule #7:
"All remarks made by military and Army DoD personnel MUST be fully attributable in accordance with the CAC CG's policy memo on blogging."
See? This is counterproductive. I know the military has been attempting to embrace new media and social networking, but here's the deal: Either you embrace it, or you don't. Either open it up to critiques from all sides--anonymous or not--or just go back to doing things the traditional way.
Either way, I think there's a simple solution here: For the new Army manual wikis, require that participants sign in with their Common Access Card (CAC) as a way for site administrators to determine eligibility. Then give soldiers the option of publicly masking how much of their identity others will see. This way, commanders can rest assured that no one will participate who shouldn't be, and soldiers of all ranks, with all types of experience, will feel comfortable offering advice.
Is this a typical way of doing things in a military chain of command? Of course it isn't. But that's the point.
Tomorrow, under an agreement with the Iraqi government, American troops are slated to completely pull back from major cities. The Iraqi security forces don't seem ready for it. And, while it seems counter-intuitive, if they aren't getting their act together, we need to speed up our departure.
In his trip to Iraq in April, President Obama said, "It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. They need to take responsibility for their country."
That much is true. What is also true is that it hasn't happened. What's true is that the Iraqis seem less interested in political progress that would lead to a relatively peaceful Iraq, and more interested in US Forces staying indefinitely to protect them from killing each other. Sure, Prime Minister Maliki says the right things about wanting the US out of Iraq, but that's purely political - he has to say those things so as not to look like a US puppet.
But, beneath the surface, there's been no political progress. There still is no oil sharing agreement, no resolution to the strife that has continued to affect Kirkuk, and no settlement among the many factions that will allow them to live side by side in peace.
And so, if the US pulls back, there's a powder keg ready to explode, with an ill-equipped Iraqi military left to try to hold things together. Frankly, the Iraqi military will never be well-trained enough to handle major explosions of violence, only minor disputes. Iraqis know this, which is why they'll continue to rely on us as a crutch as long as they can.
The problem with that is, if we have one foot in Iraq and one foot out, we are going to have a scenario when Americans think this was is over and one day they wake up to 8 or 9 dead troops in the streets of Iraq. Besides being a disaster in and of itself, it becomes a political problem for President Obama and Democrats, who own the situation now. To borrow a phrase from John McCain on Afghanistan, we'd merely be "muddling through" Iraq. That's not in US troops' interest, and certainly not in American interests.
We've already seen violence ramp up in Iraq, as surge troops have left and others pulled back. Just last week, over thirty people were killed in a series of attacks, on June 22, with at least two dozen more injured. It's exactly what I and others said it would be. We were the cork on the bottle, and for all the talk about the surge being a success, without political and diplomatic progress, it ultimately meant absolutely nothing.
I was on Hardball in July of last year about it, and said the surge was a failure in that sense, and guest-host Mike Barnicle was nearly apoplectic about it.
BARNICLE: Did I hear you correctly that you said you didn't think the surge was a success?
SOLTZ: It's not a success. I mean, we've not seen political reconciliation in Iraq. We are about to have a complete stir-up in Kirkuk. We have a situation in Afghanistan where it's totally, you know, less secure now than it was before.
The purpose of the surge is to make America safer. And I don't think anybody believes that. And I think that Senator McCain is, you know, off base like George Bush. And that Senator Obama is specifically right to continue to talk about strategy and diplomacy and defeating al Qaeda worldwide than get stuck talking about, you know, a tank platoon or an infantry platoon in the streets of Baghdad.
Now we see that, indeed, the surge meant nothing without political progress.
The question is, where do we go from here? President Obama has got to get tough with the Iraqis and make good on what he said during the campaign. I'm not privy to all the negotiations with Iraq, or any attempts to bring sides together. What I do know, however, is that there haven't been any results, either because President Obama hasn't tried hard enough, or because his efforts have failed.
Whatever the case, the President absolutely has to resist any temptation to buy more time for political progress by keeping troops there to continue to coddle Iraq. All it will mean is more violence that has American troops in the cross-hairs. The President must tell the Iraqis that, if anything, we're going to speed up our timeline to leave Iraq if they continue to stall political progress - that their internal political problems aren't worth American blood.
Like any political leaders, those in Iraq don't want to lose power, which they most certainly would if the nation falls apart into a loose patchwork of clans and fiefdoms. So, in the end, only the realization that their nation is about to fall apart and they won't have Americans around to keep it together, will be the kick in the pants Iraqi political leaders need to settle their major differences.
It's time for President Obama to recognize that, and get tough. If the Iraqis aren't committed to dealing with their internal problems then we should expedite our withdrawal. American troops should never be more committed to the peace and security of a foreign country more than those who live there.
Read this piece by author and historian Steven Pressfield if you want to see how to do COIN right. This is the very definition of "fight smarter, not harder," and it's an example that everyone who's in--or going to--Afghanistan should see.
I was very disturbed to hear this story about a proposal offering specifics on preventive detention that is "already being discussed" in the White House on NPR this morning.
Under this proposal by an outside expert,
The president could detain only "an agent of a foreign power" against whom Congress has authorized the use of military force. The detainee would also have to be "a danger both to any person and to the interests of the United States."
In the first phase of detention, the president could pick up anyone who fits those criteria and hold the person for 14 days. If the president wanted to hold the person longer, a judge would have to approve.
The detainee would have an attorney and hearsay evidence could be used against him, though not evidence obtained through coercion.
If a judge is persuaded that the detainee is a threat, the president could hold the detainee for six months. At the end of six months, the president could go back to the court and repeat the process.
To me, this goes against some of the very values I was willing to fight and die for.
I understand that we currently have terrorists in Gitmo that should probably never be released because they would pose a clear danger to the United States and its allies. It is tragic that some of them can probably never be tried because evidence against them was gained by torture. This is a legacy of the Bush administration that we are stuck with - and I honestly do not know how it can be solved. But the thought that we might want to continue this practice disgusts me.
The argument that these rules would require "soldiers to collect evidence as they're being shot at" not only seems ridiculous to me, but also exposes one of the biggest dangers of viewing everything through the lens of the "global war on terror." What makes people on a battlefield "terrorists" as opposed to "insurgents" or even - the term we gave the Mujahideen when they were fighting the last foreign power in Afghanistan - "freedom fighters"?
How can we hold people indefinitely for posing a "presumed" danger? It boggles my mind, and violates my sense of what is just. The use of classified evidence to justify indefinite detention is also a huge red flag - a notorious case in Florida was based on "classified" evidence that consisted of ... articles in a newspaper.
There are thorny issues that must be tackled to cope with those we currently have in indefinite detention. But we must not add to their ranks. Continuing this practice destroys our credibility and fuels terrorist recruitment.
While some members of the U.S. Congress are arguing "that a definable victory in Iraq has been achieved," reality suggests otherwise. This week alone, two massive bombings rocked Baghdad killing over 120 people. This is Monday's attack:
Iraq market bomb toll jumps to 52 killed
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The death toll in a bombing on Monday in Baghdad's largely Shi'ite Sadr City slum jumped to 52, making the attack one of Iraq's worst this year, police said.
A bomb ripped through a crowded market in Baghdad's main Shiite district on Wednesday, killing at least 69 people and wounding more than 100 less than a week before a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq's urban areas.
A series of blasts this week have killed more than 160 people, as U.S. and Iraqi officials warned they expected more violence before the U.S. withdrawal from cities.
More violence is likely to erupt as groups rush to fill the gaps left by withdrawing U.S. forces. What we still don't know is whether or not the Iraqi security forces are capable enough to handle such an escalation. Either way, this shouldn't affect the planned exit of American troops from Iraqi cities.
Jon Soltz went on MSNBC yesterday and gently explained to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) why the congressman was wrong to be more concerned about jobs in his district than the needs of our ground troops currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Here's the key message. It's near the end:
JON SOLTZ: It's about how we spend our money. The Congressman cares about the Lockheed Martin stock price, and I care about the men and women who fight on the ground. And this weapon system does nothing for us.
And just to be clear: The F-22 was designed in the late 1980s for dogfighting, a la Maverick and Goose. It's not a close air support aircraft like the planned F-35 is.
The F-22 is the perfect plane for Cold Warriors who expect we'll be frequently engaging MiGs in air-to-air combat over the next 20 years.
With all of the turmoil currently happening with the Iranian elections, North Korean sabre rattling, and the Somali government about to be overthrown by an insurgency, it was nice to read this little bit of good news.
WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - U.S. drones prowled the sky over Pakistan's South Waziristan on Wednesday, a day after one of the aircraft attacked a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, killing about 70 militants.
The U.S. attack came as the Pakistani army is preparing an all-out assault on al Qaeda ally Mehsud, who has been accused of orchestrating a campaign of bombings in Pakistan, including the 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
The push into South Waziristan on the Afghan border looms as the army is finishing off an offensive in the Swat valley, northwest of Islamabad, launched after Taliban gains raised fears for nuclear-armed Pakistan's future.
For one, it's nice to see the Pakistani military stepping up. For two, it's nice to see that we are able to provide a means of air support into so far a region. But most of all, it's nice to see 70 AQ militants get their 72 virgins.
Roll eyes, laugh, or be worried? Via Travis Sharp at Nukes of Hazard, we learn that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has added an amendment to the House Defense Authorization bill concerning "Victory in Iraq" that:
Would express the sense of Congress that the "surge strategy" in Iraq worked and that a definable victory in Iraq has been achieved.
So when is the victory parade with the confetti and all that?
This is a good start, but with one significant caveat:
The new American commander in Afghanistan said he would sharply restrict the use of airstrikes here, in an effort to reduce the civilian deaths that he said were undermining the American-led mission.
In interviews over the past few days, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the use of airstrikes during firefights would in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun.
Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces, he said, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas -- the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover.
"Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly," General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. "We can lose this fight."
The big caveat is this: To do this in such a way that ground commanders will remain comfortable with their missions, those commanders on the ground will need both more troops for fighting and more people with area expertise who can help to enhance intelligence-gathering operations on the ground. Without these additional elements from the Obama administration, this new approach not only further endangers U.S. troops (because you're removing a combat tool), but it also does little to mitigate civilian casualties. Because ground troops--when stuck in precarious positions--can do a lot of damage in civilian areas, too.
Implemented correctly, McChrystal's move is a necessary and long-overdue one that will help immensely. But without support from the rear, it's a strategy that could backfire. So let's hope McChrystal and his commanders on the ground get all the personnel and resources they need.
"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.
