We've Lost our Ability to Deter

by: Brandon Friedman

Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:37:11 PM EDT


For years, sane observers have noted that the decision to tie up the bulk of our Army in Iraq was strategically dangerous.  By overextending our military, the thinking went, the U.S. would be left with limited options should another, more dangerous conflict emerge.  And there was always the fear that such an overextension could, in fact, embolden our enemies to take advantage of the situation.

But John McCain was never fazed by this rationale.  The question never seemed to occur to him, and he has since spent months advocating for a hundred years in Iraq, a surge in Afghanistan, a war with Iran, and now, he's blustering for still more.  In fact, McCain's recklessness in this regard is what now drives both the Russian advance on Georgia and his own insane desire for war against what he sees as the old "KGB."

Because John McCain seems as though he wants to progress beyond simply talking with Russia.  Here's what he said yesterday:

"Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin," said McCain aide Tucker Bounds in the statement. "The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Sen. Obama's judgment -- it answers them."

So what's McCain implying here?  That words aren't enough in dealing with Russia?  Because this is what Obama had said previously:

"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement.

"Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

If a stance like that isn't good enough, and McCain really does want a fight with his old Soviet nemesis, then I have to wonder what U.S. military forces McCain would propose to use--as this goes back to the readiness/national security argument against the Iraq War.  It's the whole "what-if-another-conflict-broke-out-what-would-we-do-then" scenario.  McCain has been so irresponsible on Iraq, that even if we all wanted to rush our forces in to defend Georgia, we wouldn't have the capacity.  Everything is tied up.  Every combat unit in the Army is either overseas, preparing to go, or is recovering from a recent deployment.  

And Russia knows that. . .just like Iran and everyone else.  That figures heavily into the reason why Russia has felt so emboldened during this period.  The United States has neither the moral authority, nor the military forces with which to realistically intimidate them any longer.  And, at bottom, that's the most troubling aspect of this situation: Because the ability to intimidate, or, rather, "deter," has been precisely the purpose of our professional military since the Cold War.  Deterrence--our ability to influence other state actors with unacceptable damage through economic and military might--is what truly made us a world power.  It was never about the actual number of enemy killed on the battlefield.  It was about how frightened of us other countries were.  It was peace through strength.  

And it now seems as though we've lost that ability.  This is one of the most egregious examples of how the Bush, Cheney, and McCain line of thinking has not only destroyed our military, but endangered our national  security as well.
Brandon Friedman :: We've Lost our Ability to Deter
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

We've Lost our Ability to Deter | 50 comments
The funny thing is that Richard and I didn't (4.00 / 1)
coordinate our stories.  But we've reached the same conclusion.
Whatever... (0.00 / 0)
Brandon totally called me first and asked what I was going write.

/snark

I'm on twitter.

[ Parent ]
Actually, this has nothing to do with (0.00 / 0)
an American ability to bring a military deterrent and EVERYTHING to do with Europe's reliance on Russian oil and natural gas.

This is about pipelines, not people.

There's no reasonable scenario where US troops--if they were available or not--would have been able to deploy to Georgia in time to stop the onslaught.

What is true is that Europe is over a barrel and has to comply with Russia's wishes and the US is unable to marshal economic sanctions or penalties. There was no way Georgia was going to become part of NATO--that was the most unrealistic expectation of all.

But having said that, if we had four divisions available, they wouldn't make a difference. We've never had adequate airlift, we've never interceded before (1994, 1999) and we have no way to project significant military power into the Trans-Caucasus. They do not fear us when it comes to their own back yard.

Like I mentioned, I'm not just talking about (0.00 / 0)
military deterrence.  I'm talking about economic, too.  We've lost a great deal of influence when it comes to who's going to invade who.
[ Parent ]
What is Russia's endgame? (0.00 / 0)
Georgia's military is out of the disputed regions.  Georgia's military and infrastructure have been seriously weakened.  Western nations have been exposed as impotent, apathetic, or both.  What else does Russia want out of this conflict?

Control of chunks of the oil and gas pipelines?  For what purpose?  To charge rent?  To shut them down if someone pisses off Russia?  To shut them down immediately and forever?

Control of the rest of Georgia?  Why?  What good would the territory be to Russia?  Same question if Russia wants regime change and the installation of pro-Russia puppet.

I feel like it's awfully hard for the U.S. to deter an outcome that is a total mystery...  Of course, as Brandon suggests, the fact that we lack both the realistic ability to force change and the international credibility to suggest change doesn't help.

Agree with everything ... (0.00 / 0)
except the reference to the 100-year war thing, which folks keep taking completely out of context (McNasty's remark was that he'd be fine with us being there that long so long as it involved a situation where our forces were not being engaged in combat, e.g., just as we have permanent presence in South Korea and in Europe).

:)

So if our troops started taking casualties (0.00 / 0)
he would pull them out?  I'd be willing to bet, based on his past actions, that he would send more troops in.  So, if violence is up, his response is to send more troops in.  Once the violence is over and casualties are non-existent, then we can stay?  There is no situation, according to McCain's own remarks, where he would be ok with us leaving.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Heck if I know ... (0.00 / 0)
for sure if troops started taking casualties he'd pull them out.  Probably not.   :)

"I'd be willing to bet, based on his past actions, that he would send more troops in."

You're probably right.

"There is no situation, according to McCain's own remarks, where he would be ok with us leaving."

Again, you're probably right and in practice he'd, no doubt, flip-flop on whatever position he takes ... as he seems to have done on most things.  But folks still, in fact, have taken his remark at that campaign event out of context.  I don't think he'd be fine with a 100-year war, as much of a whackadoo as he is -- and he knows damn well it's not up to him anyway (unless he's figured out a way to cheat death ... and have Congress repeal the prohibition on more than two consecutive terms).

[ Parent ]
I'm going with all of the above... (0.00 / 0)
[except I think that Georgia was being considered for membership in the EU].

Idjits like PNAC  must have believed their own propaganda that Reagan saying "Mr Gorbashov, tear that wall down", rather than the fact that the USSR  over-extented  the military and had a collapsing economy and infrastructure lead to their fall from power.

Others argue that the Big Game is no longer being played by the Brits/Americans, but by China and Russia.

Russia invaded because they could. Note that they had their troops in place to deploy and they have also built their own answer to BP and the US Oil Cartels. Putin is reported to have $40B+ in Gazprom stock. NATO and the US are now militarily, economically, and internationally weak.

Guess if I were the head of Russia (0.00 / 0)
and Obama said those words to me, I'd ask, "Or what?"
And Obama would look towards various sanctions and (0.00 / 0)
economic pressure that could be used through the international community.  Diplomacy would probably be his first step.

McCain would skip all of that and start bombing Moscow now.  He would probably combine that with an attack on Iran, considering how we have so many troops and resources to spare.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
McCain would skip all of that and start bombing Moscow now.  He would probably combine that with an attack on Iran.....

Come on, Chris.  Do you really think McCain would "bomb Moscow" and then hit Iran for current situations as they are now?  I've read all the "interpreted" McCain statements used here against him, and they are quite a stretch.

Friedman practically blames McCain for Russia's aggression on Georgia.  Typical.  As one who tries to be politically and objectively neutral, I find much of the rhetoric here almost bordering on insanity.  Obama is a good presidential candidate who will put more emphasis in negotiated peace as president; however, McCain knows that in this world, there can only be peace through (hopefully) wisely-used strength.  

IMHO, Russia would have gone into Georgia whether we had nukes warming up in the pits or begged Putin (and sidekick) by kissing his ass to be more peaceful toward Georgia.  I don't believe our politics, on either side, would have had ANYTHING to do with their decision.

[ Parent ]
Ok, I'll admit that statement is hyperbolic (0.00 / 0)
And intentionally so.  The point being that McCain always looks to the use of force as his first instrument of diplomacy.  He has repeatedly called for military action against Iran, when they pose no threat to us.  And I have yet to see McCain promote "wisely-used" strength.  So, to answer your question - yes - as president McCain's first response would be to send troops, or bombers if we don't have the troops.  This is the same guy who said that military intervention in Iran would not require troops, and could be done with air power alone.  While the problem may be solved through any number of means, his answer is more troops.

Now, the only times I ever see you here is either to defend McCain, or to attack Friedman.  I never see you tear apart any of his articles using logic, and backing up your statements with facts and links.  You trash everything he says or does, but you never respond with a counter-argument.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Wrong! (0.00 / 0)
His counter argument is Wahhabism!!!

ZOMG!!! They're gonna git us all and cut our heads off!!!

Bless his heart, but I would have hated to have seen how scared he must have been when the Soviet Union had troops in Eastern Europe...

[ Parent ]
Its not necessarily McCain's words Friedman is referring to (0.00 / 0)
Its McCain's foreign policy decisions and those past Bush Administration foreign policies which  he also supported that has lead us to the predicament we find ourselves in today.  Now maybe the Russians would have went into Georgia irregardless of what U.S. military capabilities were available or maybe they wouldn't have.  That decision was made by those men in the Kremlin.  One thing is for certain though.  Their decision to move into Georgia was calculated by knowing that the U.S. military wouldn't have the resources to respond effectively.  By committing all U.S. forces to one geographical region an opportunity presented itself and Russia exploited it to its fullest.  A mistake like that is expected from a strategic novice.  Not from a man who "knows how to win wars" as McCain always claims.

"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home."

Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC-43 BC

[ Parent ]
That's actually a myth-- (0.00 / 0)
We could have put troops in Georgia within hours. It's about 585 miles as the crow flies from Baghdad to Tbilisi, and we could have put together enough airlift to move a brigade within two days, with limited supply of course.

I mean, we removed their troops with our airlift--we could have pulled a brigade ourselves as a symbol. Heck, the war's over and we won--we don't need troops in Iraq anymore!

[ Parent ]
If that is the case, then why didn't they do it? (0.00 / 0)
I can only surmise that if they did do that, then the U.S. military would have been even more overstreched than it already is and would be in a worse sitiutation than before.  I'm sure the Russians and Iraqis were calculating that also from their own points of view and would have exploited it.

"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home."

Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC-43 BC

[ Parent ]
Because Petraeus said no (0.00 / 0)
would be my guess.

This is his AOR. Heard him say anything about it?

[ Parent ]
I'd argue that (0.00 / 0)
they wouldn't have done it because no matter what the situation, pitting US forces against Russia could mean starting WWIII.

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
It worked in the Balkans--so long (0.00 / 0)
as the Russians had room to move (i.e., taking the airfield at Pristina), we were able to conduct operations in and around their forces.

The example of restrain shown by General Clark in the Balkans always comes up when people want to run down the Clinton Admin--there will always be those who think we should have "started WWIII" and all that, but the example of how we can stand firmly with the Russians should be based on precedent.

They threw precedent in our face (Regime change) and they were right.

We should have thrown what happened in the Balkans in their face and made the genocide/ethnic cleansing argument.

We could have done that with a token brigade--so long as it didn't encourage the WAHHABBISTS!!!! ZOMG!!!!

This is a lost opportunity to walk the Russians back a little, to keep them out of the oil pipeline seizing business.

[ Parent ]
What Putin also knows (0.00 / 0)
Russia's Putin (and junior partner Medvedev) know that the U.S. armed forces are over-committed.  But here's what else they know: Bush is in no position to criticize.  America has for years pursued a foreign policy based on the ancient principle of "who's gonna stop us?"  Putin believes in the same principle, and what goes around comes around.

Yesterday morning, CNN's Wolf Bliitzer interviewed Georgian President Saakashvili.  He told a story about what was written on an unexploded bomb attached to a shot-down Russian plane: "This is for Americans. This is for NATO."  

More Background (0.00 / 0)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/C...

"The number 300 explains what tougher means - that's the count of Russian artillery pieces that have been deployed to South Ossetia alone, once Saakashvili dispatched his United States and Israel-trained troops into action at Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. That push, according to Russian military thinking, was not intended to hold Tskhinvali for Georgia, but to destroy it, and withdraw swiftly back into Georgia - ending the South Ossetian secession by liquidating its people. "....

This whole (0.00 / 0)
conflict probably goes back, way back. Then again, why are we mad at Putin? Putin has actually been a big help against AQ types. The Russians have been a much bigger help against Wahhabi jihadists then any of the Western Europeans or any of these international organizatons, that is for sure. In fact, do we even know what caused this conflict? I dont think we do yet, but here our politicians are once again, taking sides immediately.
Umm yeah (4.00 / 1)
Georgia sent troops to secure a breakaway Georgian region, which wasn't necessarily the right thing to do, but Russia then escalated the action outside of that region and even went so far as to bomb sites in the Georgian capital.  And what has Putin done exactly to deter Al Qeada? Once again, a strongly worded statement with no references.

Oh, and as stated in another comment, your use of the term "jihadist" is a misnomer.  

I'm on twitter.

[ Parent ]
No my use of the term (0.00 / 0)
Wahhabi jihadist is hardly a misnomer on  my part. Wahhabis use the term constantly and leave no doubt what they mean by it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eur...

http://ermeni.org/english/chec...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

Not to mention the overall ass kicking that the Russians handed the Wahhabis in the Caucus.

Then again, who said anything about detering AQ. From the looks of things, the Russians would rather destroy them.

[ Parent ]
Not that (4.00 / 1)

I expect any constructive debate regarding a subject(Wahhabism) that has been deemed off limits by petrodollar funded Political Correctness.  
[ Parent ]
You aren't getting any debate from me (0.00 / 0)
on the criticism of Wahabism. Its your use of the word "jihadist" that is incorrect.

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
Well yes (0.00 / 0)
but on their part. It is them who use the term jihad so pervasively.  To them, jihad might as well be the only pillar.  
[ Parent ]
But you are using it in the same manner, (4.00 / 1)
so that makes you wrong too.

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
I don't honestly know what to call them. I would say fighters, but the Wahhabi "jihadists" aren't all fighters. Their ranks are made up of moneymen, lawyers, businessmen, imams, media types, etc. Terrorist isn't exactly accurate either, even considering the fact that AQ, AQI, and the rest of the Wahhabis are damn good at utilizing terror as a tactic.
[ Parent ]
How about Wahabists? (0.00 / 0)
Thats a good one. Or Wahabi fundamentalists? Wahabi terrorists or insurgents?

Or, how about just not bringing them into a discussion that doesn't involve them in any way?

but why would I expect that when you continue to invoke "AQI", an organization which doesn't exist.

I'm on twitter.

[ Parent ]
Well this (0.00 / 0)
discussion probably should include Wahhabis, if for no other reason, for the fact that our politicians are talking tough to the Russians while we haven't even beat bin Laden's boys yet.  
[ Parent ]
What does talking tough to the Russians (0.00 / 0)
have to do with Wahabists? Your drawing connection between issues where there are none.

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
it costs us a potential ally, that is for sure.  It makes us look pretty stupid too.  
[ Parent ]
Granted on the looking stupid part... (0.00 / 0)
but as long as we are living in a globalized economy, Russia will be an "ally".

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
What I probably should ask have asked is (0.00 / 0)
do our politicians really have any business attacking a man whose approval rating is higher than the White House and Congress's approval rating combined????
Ballastic missles emplaced? (0.00 / 0)
http://www.democracynow.org/20...

It appears to me as if the Russians were preparing themselves to do that in this case. First of all, I think they believe the United States was going to intervene. At a news conference on Sunday, the deputy national security adviser said we have noted that the Russians have introduced two SS-21 medium-range ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia. Now, let me say a little footnote about those. They're both conventional and nuclear. They have a relatively small conventional warhead, however. So, the military significance, if they were to be conventional, was almost trivial compared to what the Russians could deliver with the aircraft that they were using to strike the Georgians.

I think this was a signal. I think this was an implementation on their part of their doctrine. It clearly appears as if they expected the United States to do what they had practiced in their exercises. In fact, this morning, the Russians had an air defense exercise in the southern part of Russia that borders Georgia in which they-it was practicing shooting down incursion aircraft that were incursion into Russia. They were prepared for the United States to intervene, and I think they were prepared-or at least they were wanting to show the United States that their doctrine of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if the US attacks, was serious, and they needed to take-the United States needs to take Russia very seriously.  

Not that (0.00 / 0)
I expect any constructive debate regarding a subject(Wahhabism) that has been deemed off limits by petrodollar funded Political Correctness.  
What is your obsession with "Wahhabism?" (0.00 / 0)
This is a conventional war in Georgia over oil and natural gas fields and pipelines.

It has nothing to do with Wahhabism. NOTHING. It is the furthest thing from the minds of the players involved. It doesn't even get a mention anywhere.

I've read scores of articles since this broke and no one talks about religion, or Islam, or fundamentalism, or any of that. It's not even really about democracy, or western ideals--it's about preventing Georgia from joining NATO and smacking the shit out of them to knock out their oil and natural gas infrastructure.

It's got as much to do with Wahhabism as it has to do with Maoism.

[ Parent ]
It does (0.00 / 0)
have something to do with Wahhabism, actually. If we get caught up in a conflict with the Russians, then who stands to gain the most?? Probably al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the rest of the Wahhabi movement. That and our stance against Russia has probably further alienated a very useful ally against Wahhabism. Besides, we are at war with Wahhabism. This will, at a minimum, be a major distraction. While it may not have much to do with Georgia getting it on with the Russians, Wahhabism should be a very big consideration in our response, which has been utter idiocy from all sides thus far. Then again, we don't even know what caused this conflict, do we? For all I know, it may be about settling old ethnic scores.  
[ Parent ]
My obsession (0.00 / 0)
with Wahhabism lies in the fact that it is the ideology of the enemy. These guys attacked us directly and got away with it. Make that they are still getting away with it. That, and it helps that they have no rational reasons for hating us, unlike many of our enemies. If you think Wahhabis don't hate infidels, just ask the Shiites. We covered their ass in Gulf War I, gave them our Islamic institutions, go out of our way not to offend them, and acknowledge them as the true authority on Islam, all for a few petrodollars. Might I remind everyone that appeasing them has not only made us new enemies(Russians, Shiites, Serbs, etc.), it has not even made them stop hating us.  
[ Parent ]
It has nothing to do with "Wahhabism." (4.00 / 1)
Who let who get away with what? The only threat these people have is a threat to your peace of mind.

They are today's useful idiot, and where they get in the way of making money, someone puts a bullet in their ear. The new Hitler is Putin, and the old Hitlers are Wahhabis, Saddam, Social Security, and Nancy Pelosi...

[ Parent ]
Your argument (0.00 / 0)
here is assuming that our government is smarter than the Arabs/Russians. How do you know that our government is not the useful idiots here? Then again, if you think we are still smarter than the rest of the world, I suggest you take a good look at the state of the American public school system. And we wonder why the world really hates us?????????
[ Parent ]
I thought they hated us for our Freedoms... (0.00 / 0)
you're saying they hate us for our school lunch programs and our extracurricular activities? What, like band practice? They hate us because of our band practice?
[ Parent ]
No I (0.00 / 0)
said our public school system is in the shitter, that is what I said.
[ Parent ]
By the way (0.00 / 0)
we are in bed with the Wahhabis. Who is our number 1 ally in the Middle East? The same one who supplied 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and a very large chunk of the foreign fighters in Iraq.  
[ Parent ]
It is true, the US has lost much of its ability to deter... (0.00 / 0)
Lately, US credibility has been at zero and going backwards and US standing in the world and its global leadership role are in jeopardy.

However, this sad situation is far from being irreversible. All that is required to stop this downward spiral is strong and competent presidential (or vice presidential, as the case may be!) leadership...of this kind of caliber, for example...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/707f...

Dollars to Donuts (4.00 / 1)
thats a Biden article.

I'm on twitter.
[ Parent ]
This is for you, Richard...and deMeme, too! (0.00 / 0)
Senators Dick Lugar and Joe Biden penned an earlier and prescient op-ed on this matter back in April and the two should really be read together.

http://www.joebiden.com/news/d...

It just goes to prove that while the US may have lost its ability to deter - I would argue it has just off-loaded it to the French! - the presence of leaders like Biden and Lugar, among others, will ensure that ablility can re-emerge and be stronger and more effective.

[ Parent ]
What...are you afraid to click on it!? (0.00 / 0)
Hey...I can relate...I meant to say it was the latest op-ed from Senator Biden in the Financial Times of London on the state of affairs in Georgia...sorry...but a very reputable site...
We've Lost our Ability to Deter | 50 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "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

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "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.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "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

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    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.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    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.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox