In a counter-insurgency, a conventional force will always be one step behind its crafty, low-tech, unconventional foe. Improvised Exploding Devices (IEDs) have been a staple for guerilla fighting for decades, but Iraq has been a developmental flashpoint for the weapons that make up 40% of American deaths there, higher than any other means.
Crude IEDs began to show up months after the initial invasion and grew more sophisticated by each passing day as insurgents learned and retooled their weapons. By the time my deployment began, IEDs were the number one threat to look for. For the next ten months, they would become so frequent that we avoided driving altogether and used vehicles only for infiltration and extraction. They changed how we fought and moved around the battlefield.
Now there's a new threat: flying IEDs. From the Washington Post:
U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.
The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.
This has been happening since last year but we're just now getting word about it. It represents a new shift in tactics on the part of insurgents: to hit us where we sleep. A number of attacks have been reported on combat outposts - usually crude homes fortified by American forces to create a presence within the city.
As with any insurgency, experience guides them. As we continue to have a presence in Iraq for the next five, ten or hundred years, insurgents will continue to refine their deadly skills. Just by staying there and refusing to put our own skills to use in Afghanistan, we have created a training manual for would be jihadists that will last forever, and each passing day fills the pages
I would like to congratulate the members of VoteVets.org and Vet Voice for your tireless work on making sure the new GI Bill was passed this week. Through calls, letters and emails, we were able to keep the pressure on Washington to get it done. It was a resounding victory for veterans. Unfortunately, there are plenty of politicians that are looking to steal your thunder.
Senators John Cornyn and John McCain are like two anti-troop peas in a pod. After voting against the Dwell TIme Amendment that would give soldiers equal time at home as they spent overseas, both adamantly opposed the new GI Bill as "too generous." Going a step further, Cornyn's aide personally told me during a call to his office that the new GI Bill would encourage soldiers to leave the service. Of course, Cornyn pulled that notion out of John McCain's ass, who repeatedly suggested the new GI Bill would harm the military by way of reduced retention. Transferability of the bill to family members never came up during the opposition to this bill.
As Brandon dutifully pointed out this week, Cornyn pulled a huge waffle moment, citing victory of the new GI Bill after fighting so diligently to get the retention clause put in, one he never cared about in the first place. John McCain, overcome with flip-flop envy, took his cue from the wealthy lawyer from Texas:
I'm happy to tell you that we probably agreed on an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them an increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time, than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people to stay in the military.
We? Out of the 92-6 vote, two senators were not present. One of them was Ted Kennedy, who is home recovering from brain surgery. The other was John McCain. Even John Cornyn was faux-brave enough to vote "yea" after his defiance was stomped out of Congress like a flaming bag of dog shit.
Time and time again, John McCain has been a detriment to troops and veterans, not only for his disastrous plans for Iraq but for the curtailing of benefits soldiers receive when they come home. His loyalty no longer resides with fellow veterans but to slick D.C. politics.
As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq press on, the division between the United States military and the civilian population it defends continues to grow. The prolonged conflicts are two of a kind in the history of this country: a tiny portion of professional soldiers hold the line and with it, the immense burden of multiple tours in combat. A sober realization is in order for the clueless public to come and appreciate what their countrymen have endured for nearly eight years and counting.
"Final Salute: A Story of Unfinished Lives" is that desperately needed wakeup call. Author Jim Sheeler composed "Final Salute" from his Pulitzer Prize winning articles of the same name for The Rocky Mountain News. The book is centered around Lieutenant Colonel Steve Beck, a Marine casualty assistance calls officer that expected to go to war but instead fought a different battle in the states. His job carries an unimaginable weight - notifying the family of service members killed in war. With a knock at the door, Beck transforms the lives of the people on the other side, seeing them at their most vulnerable.
The commitment doesn't end with the knock. From several months to years after the death notification, Lt. Col. Beck acts as a pillar of strength to families he delivered the tragic news to. He oversees the memorial services of the fallen, but his most vital job is consoling the families he first met on their doorstep. His wisdom is apparent in his candid words throughout the book. In lightening the pain of those families, he absorbs a great deal of it. Some nights, he cries in bed after the toll is too much to bear.
"I can't help but feel that I'm the person who's bringing them all that pain," he said. "Maybe that's what hurts me the most: that because I'm standing in front of them, they're feeling as bad as they're ever going to feel."
The book isn't just about Lt. Col. Steve Beck. The narrative is woven with the stories of those who answered the door. The most touching story is that of Katherine Cathey, the wife of Marine Second Lieutenant James J. Cathey. Katherine was pregnant when James left for Iraq, when he promised in a letter, "I will be home. I have a wife and a new baby to take care of, and you guys are my world."
Months later, James was killed in Iraq. He still came home, though in a flag draped coffin. On the tarmac of a Reno airport, Katherine told her friends, everything I love is on that plane.
A day before his burial, Lt. Col. Beck conducted final inspections on the coffin. The usual protocol was to have Marines guard the body during the day and leave at night. Katherine decided to stay with her husband for their final night together. The Marines decided to stay with her too, watching over their Marine brother and his wife. A window to the street captured the image for the passersby, busily walking without a care in the world. None of them saw the solemn, pregnant war window cozying up to her husband's coffin.
A constant theme throughout the book put that striking image into words: as families struggle to go on without their loved ones, the public remains largely ignorant of the amount of sacrifices made on their part by service members and their families. The only way to rectify that is to get informed, especially if you don't know anyone in the military to share a personal experience with. Jim Sheeler's book should be the first place you look for the stories of those who gave all for this nation.
After my own combat tour where I saw many good men killed, the message of love and loss still resonated with me. I can't remember a time a book made me cry, but "Final Salute" did me in a number of times. More than anything, it made me reflect fondly on my friends killed in action and how incredibly fortunate I was to make it out in one piece, back to my family.
After reading about Katherine Cathey's struggle to cope with her loss, I went to my girlfriend with tear filled eyes and hugged her tight. Puzzled, she asked why the sudden affection.
President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.
Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. "If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place," said a US intelligence source.
The last year in a president's term is always the legacy year, a twelve month countdown to leave on a high note and look good for the history books. But this redoubled effort to bag Osama bin Laden is a pitiful stretch to rescue what is already a writhing abortion of American stature, both home and abroad.
After his gung ho approach to kill or capture bin Laden following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush famously had this to say six months later:
It took a presidential election to change his mind on bin Laden, which has has moved from viciously wanted to casually forgotten and back again. It didn't take 390 Taliban prisoners being freed in a suicide attack to get Afghanistan back in the news, or a 50% uptick in violence in the U.S. controlled southern region. It was simply a few words from the guy on his way out to find the glaring asterik of his presidency somewhere in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.
It remains dubious if bin Laden's capitulation or death would amount to anything in the (real) war on terror. al-Qaeda and the Taliban seem to replace their high ranking members immediately when death befalls them, but getting numero uno might deal a blow to their morale and show the world how competent we are. The jury is still out on our competence and prioritizing of military assets, seeing as we have about as much soldiers in Baghdad as we do in the whole country of Afghanistan. When the defense secretary asks repeatedly of the world to send more troops there, you know you're in a logistical nightmare.
Hmm, if only there were a large consolidation of American troops and equipment in the Middle East to quell the rising tide of violence in Afghanistan...
I'll be the first person to support more efforts in Afghanistan in the face of an insurgency spinning out of control, but this reeks of political posturing. It's nothing more than a relay handoff to John McCain to justify his bold plans of an American presence in 22nd century Iraq, if bin Laden ends up being killed or captured. The ultimate October surprise. It would give a startling impression to undecided voters: that the Bush administration accomplished something, anything in the nearly eight years of war in Afghanistan. And you better believe John McCain will go out there, smile awkwardly and suggest more of the ass kicking will come if he is elected.
The truth is that he's already dedicated to Iraq and will likely leave Afghanistan on the wayside just like his presidential surrogate, with or without bin Laden locked up.
And for that, the RGWOT will continued half-assed and on the cheap as we dump lives, money and time into the 100 year pit.
Our resident smart ass and Iraq news gatherer, LT Nixon, is on his way back to the states and has some words for almost the entire planet:
To The Iraqis: I wish you the best for your country. I can't imagine what it's like to have a genocidal dictator like Saddam followed by 5 years of chaos and confusion in post-invasion Iraq. Please know that those in the coalition only want to help you, but some egregious decisions were made in 2003 (de-ba'athification, disbanding the Army, etc.). I hope our current mission has helped kick out the Takfiris and weakened the militia thugs. While my words may ring hallow, please know that I hope your country becomes prosperous and you have a better life.
To The Troops: You guys are by far the best our generation has to offer. We count on you to do America's most dangerous work. Please keep your experience in your heart, and consider entering a profession that will influence society after you transition from military service. I see a lot of problems with what America has become, and you may be our last hope to fix that. For the fallen and injured, we will never forget you.
To The Lefty Pundits: While I understand that you may not like BushCo and his war, please consider that your frequent highlighting of the failures in Iraq may have a devastating psychological effect on those trying to make Iraq better. I am a huge cynic, but I think the current plan is on the right track (at least for Iraq).
To The Right-winger Pundits: While Iran is certainly a troublemaker, you have to ask yourself if an all-out military conflict is really the solution to Hezbollah, EFPs, and a possible nuke. If it is, then you have to take into consideration the huge amount of life that will be lost as well as the fact that we will need a no-joke draft. Are you ready to make that sacrifice?
Let me be the first to say "Welcome home!" Seattle is nice this time of year if you can evade the Code Pink crowd.
I don't have anything against Vets for Freedom, the other side of the veteran's political coin. They're doing what they believe in, and so are we. That being said, I am not one to accept cheap political shots borne out of hypocrisy.
Earlier today, VFF released a video of SPC Kate Norley chiding Senator Obama on not visiting Iraq since 2006. A cursory search of SPC Norley yields a Stars & Stripes article on her work in Iraq. The date? April 22, 2004. For those keeping score at home, 2004 is two years less than 2006, the same exact time frame Norley uses to dispute Obama's views on Iraq since his 2006 visit to the present day.
The video is full of half truths and convenient stretches, notably the go-to phrase of the century, 'the surge worked.' Norley expresses her shiny outlook so positively that it sounds like a laundry list of reasons to leave Iraq immediately:
-Attacks are down 70%
-The civil war is over
-The Iraqi government has made much political progress
-al Qaeda has been decimated
-The iraqi Army is taking on rogue militias across the country.
So we can leave, right?
I maintain the position that a self sufficient, professional military and police force is the biggest factor of Iraq sustaining itself without an American presence. Just nine months ago (three years after Norley's deployment), I wrote about being ordered to stay out of pictures being taken by the New York and LA Times during the deputy prime minister's visit to Baqubah. Why? To give the media a feeling that the Iraqi Army planned and executed the security for the second highest state official. That we were along for the ride. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing has proven that this Wizard of Oz policy has changed since I was in Iraq. It is true that the ISF has improved since Norley's time, but it couldn't have gotten any worse from 2004. They're still bumbling sectarian nincompoops. I watched an IA soldier use his rifle barrel to prop open a sewer lid cover so he could search inside. I saw an IA soldier shoot a lock point blank with his AK-47 as ten others gawked right next to him. I saw an IA platoon almost kill me after they spotted me on a roof of a marked American position, and the lie about me shooting first. I saw an IA soldier smash a civilian's face into the side of a building for nothing and later proclaiming "Sadr good!" That is the Iraqi Army I saw, the lazy, squabbling bunch. Nominal progress is touted as remarkable success, horrific to mediocre in five years. I don't call that a gain, just reduced loss and squandered time.
The truth is, violence has reduced in part by paying insurgents not to shoot us.
We took out of the equation a great deal of fighters by simply handing them money and a bright sash and calling them the neighborhood watch. This is akin to putting a band-aid on a severed limb, as the so called Sons of Iraq, formerly killers of American soldiers, promised to our faces to be our enemy again at some point in the future. When and where is left to them, when we outlive our usefulness, or when we and the Iraqi government fail enough times to integrate them into the ISF.
Just last month, American deaths were higher for a one month period than they were since September 2007, when I was still there. While violence against American troops has curtailed, the question still remains: if everything is like it should be, why didn't we leave today? And why aren't we going to leave tomorrow?
Norley's claims in the ad are purposely misleading and glaringly hypocritical when you consider her own dated experience in Iraq. If we use her criteria on expertise, Senator Obama has a better idea than she does, being the more recent vistor to Iraq. The issue is a red herring anyway (at least to any honest veteran). We know that a two day visit to Iraq as a state official means tip-toeing around the Green Zone with an entourage at your every whim. Even if you leave the safety of the fortress, a mini-army is there to protect you. There is no way you can get an accurate portrayal of how Iraq is doing by briefly talking to yes-men officers. Not in 2006, not in 2008, not ever. Vets for Freedom has boxed in Obama by implying he refuses to see how it 'really is.'
Senator Obama's position on Iraq is crystal clear: it wrongly overshadows the (real) Global War on Terror in Afghanistan, a belief we share here at VetVoice. You don't have to go to Iraq to realize our presence there emboldens the Taliban and bin Laden while weakening our military readiness. That much is clear to me, Senator Obama and anyone with a shred of sense.
Success cannot be achieved if success is not defined. It wasn't defined when SPC Norley was in Iraq four years ago, and it wasn't defined when I was in Iraq nine months ago.
To quote SPC Norley, "Much has changed." Not really, Kate. We're still there.
It's more of the same coming out of Senator Cornyn's (R-TX) office. I called them just now to ask them how he stands on S. 22's vote tomorrow in the Senate. An aide fielded my questions.
On the issue of troop retention:
"Senator Webb's bill encourages soldiers to leave the service."
Wrong! I let her know 75% of people who enlist in the military get out after their first obligation ends. How much of a hike do they expect, 2%? 3%? What about the recruiting potential?
On the issue of fixed payments (a feature of Senator Graham's bill) versus fluid payments (Senator Webb's bill):
".............That's a good point. I'll have to bring that up to Senator Cornyn"
Cornyn's aide didn't have an answer to my question: what does Senator Cornyn aim to do about Senator Graham's fixed payment of up to $2000? Amend it every year as tuition goes up? I put it in simple terms: Senator Webb's bill is written in a way that pays the maximum tuition by state, meaning it covers the cost today and covers the cost ten years from now. With Senator Graham's bill, we will be in the same boat we are now a few years down the line. Inadequate payment in the face of skyrocketing tuition.
On the subject of Senator Cornyn's expertise on the military:
"Senator Cornyn supports the troops. His father was in the military."
My rebuttal:
"While I respect Senator Cornyn's position as a United States senator, I have to wonder why he elects to know more about potential rentention issues Webb's bill would allegedly create. Senator Webb was a Vietnam vet and Secretary of the Navy. His bill has strong bipartisan support, namely from Senator Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have no problems with this bill and retention woes. Why does Senator Cornyn think differently than two veterans?"
And her reply?
"Thanks for calling Senator Cornyn's office. I'll let him know about your points."
After taking down my ZIP code, she was eager to get off the phone with me. I gave Senator Cornyn fifteen months in Iraq, and his aide couldn't give me fifteen minutes. I squeezed in the last question:
"Why does Senator Cornyn endorse a bill that has only around ten cosponsors? Why not Webb's, who has 58, with both Democrats and Republicans on as cosponsors?"
No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. ... The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who've served. ... The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service.
Well, we all know he doesn't have the best track record when it comes to helping veterans. Anyone else have a bad feeling about this?
As far back as I could remember, I wanted to be in the Army. I don't know where it came from (my dad was a Navy veteran, after all), but I was enthralled by military history. I couldn't get enough of it. But it wasn't enough to simply read about the military. I wanted to be a part of it as soon as I could.
I was playing hookie on Sept. 11, 2001, staying home during my sophomore year of high school when I saw the towers crumble on live television. I wasn't thrown into uncertainty about my decision to join the Army when the invasion of Afghanistan commenced weeks later. Two months before my graduation in 2003, the Iraq War started. My only insight, like 99.9% of Americans, came from the CNN broadcasts in the middle of the night. Seeing the death reports roll in, I still wasn't phased.
I hesitate to call that conviction or courage, but I figured it was my generation. My fight. As soon as possible I enlisted for three years. A good deal of that was a fifteen month deployment. Suffice to say, I had a different opinion of war policy and the decisions that led us to continued war in Iraq. I saw a good deal of my friends fall into the stop loss policy that barred them from leaving the service after their contractual obligation ended. One friend of mine deployed on the very day he was supposed to separate from the Army. I had never known anyone that was called up through the IRR. We all thought it was a rumor or an exaggeration.
Though I don't know author Colby Buzzell, we went along a similar path. We were in the same Stryker brigade (though in different deployments), we walked the streets of Baghdad and we both maintained anonymous blogs while deployed. We're both out now, but only one of us is on his way back to Iraq thanks to the IRR, with a hat-tip to Brandon:
...I really was looking forward to applying my GI Bill to photography classes so I could learn how to take pictures. But now, thanks to not enough Americans volunteering for military service, I now have to worry about my picture appearing on the second or third page of my hometown paper with the words, "it was his second deployment" in my obituary.
That's at the very end of the article that deserves to be read in full by every single breathing American citizen. Buzzell expresses a sentiment felt by nearly every veteran I know: Americans have not only failed to pick up the slack of a two front war, but they've dumped all the hardship, responsibility, guilt, heartbreak and exhaustion onto less than 1% of the population - service members and their families. There's a word for that: serfdom.
There doesn't exist an expression better fitting than that, a relationship between two segments of society where one side dumps something so righteous and serious as war onto the other, a segment that is bound by the state for an indefinite period of time. A part of society that answered the call of duty for various reasons but is either browbeaten to reenlist after their term is up, or is called back into serving another combat tour once they completely get out of the service. School, careers and families are all put on hold or annihilated for continued combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back in the states, perpetual cowards on the pro war side choose to sit on the bench while the team takes all the hits (h/t OYE).
They'll never forget to boast about what they didn't earn either. If you've got a strong stomach, read the comments under the story for some revolting trash about how there have been only 4,000 deaths in the Iraq War so far and the constant shoulda/coulda/woulda mentality regarding service. It's always "my friend" or "my dad" who served. It seems honor and commitment are only words in a Tom Clancy novel to some. I've got a challenge for the ingrate pukes that frequent Little Green Footballs and sites like it: tell me to my face that only 4,000 of my comrades have died, that only two of my friends were killed doing something conservatives refuse to do. I will, in turn, only jam my fist down your chickenhawk throat.
I'm with Colby Buzzell on the belief that a military draft will solve all the ambiguity surrounding the Iraq War, its reasons for existence and continued pursuance. The lazy neocons would wake up and realize what less than 1% of the population knows for a fact: the war goes on without a clear strategy and even muddier goals. Of course, most would get deferments like their idols Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, but it would bring Iraq back into the national discussion. Suddenly, a lot of people would realize a war is not something they want to send their little snowflake into. Before it was their neighbor's cousin, but their own family?! Humph! War is for poor people after all.
Imagine: half the troops in Iraq would be repositioned in Afghanistan, going after bona fide Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda insurgents. After a reallocation of combat power, there would be no need of the IRR or stop loss programs. The U.S. would be fighting in a war everyone can agree on, with clear goals and objectives: destruction of the Taliban network that has been allowed to fester since 2003. The capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. And folks like Colby Buzzell would go on with their lives, their service completed honorably. No more interruptions of life after war, no more abuse by a system set up to punish the selfless patriots willing to sacrifice everything for the privileged pigs at the trough, ready to send everyone to war except themselves.
It's an out-of-body experience to come back from a deployment, when you realize where you came from, what you did and what's in front of you is all in a hazy blur. The war, be it Afghanistan or Iraq, comes to dominate every instance of your life. How could it not? You have nowhere to go but the FOB or outside the wire. Over and over. Rinse and repeat. You watched the same movies on DVD and recounted the same tired war stories only a few months old. The war was going on if you were outside the wire or not, but it was meaningful when you were out there on missions that would be making the news. You were a part of it in those moments, whether it turned out to be good or bad.
That kind of input and insight is lost wholesale on the American public, out of choice or plain ignorance. Us few, veterans of the war, know about the pain and loss associated with combat tours. After all, it's an all-volunteer force carrying the burden of a two front war constantly evolving when it comes to enemies and tactics. Just in my tour alone, our enemies became our makeshift allies. We worked with them because we were ordered to, but there was mutual hatred between us and the organization that killed my friends. In the states, pundits proclaimed it a success of the surge. After all, second hand bias is just as good as hands-on experience to some.
Which is where the disconnect comes from. The public is war weary. No one wants to hear about it over the prolonged Democratic nominee struggle or high gas prices. I spent twelve days on the road, moving from Seattle to Austin, Texas. I drove through ten states in less than two weeks, and I could not tell there were nearly 200,000 of our countrymen in danger at that very moment, risking their lives for an ungrateful nation. I spotted a Marine convoy in California and exits to bases in Nevada, but other than that, no signs of seven years of war. People discussed their favorite TV shows and problems with their children at the pitstops alongside busy highways. No one has been asked to pay taxes or give their own children to the war. And the merits of war are talked about with extreme aloof, like it was happening to some other country, some other people.
There was just one person I knew for sure that shared this sentiment. Standing to get my picture printed at Splash Mountain at Disneyland, I spotted a guy with a First Armored Division hat standing next to me, the words "Operation Iraqi Freedom" printed in sparkling gold thread. I wanted to say, me too, buddy, me too. I don't understand these people anymore. The people whose biggest concern was what SUV to buy next. For me and the fellow in the hat, we were just trying to fit back into the society we had left to go to war.
I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is, al-Qaeda is no longer our biggest threat in Iraq. The bad news is, it's Iranian backed agents of the Mahdi Army:
But the United States has waded into a monumental power struggle within the majority Shiite community - and crucially, that both sides in that struggle, not just the "special groups," maintain close ties to Iran.
The power struggle is only the latest stage in a decades-long competition between the families of the current top Shiite players: anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, whose political party in Iraq works closely with the U.S. despite its links to Iran.
That intra-Shiite competition is likely to continue - sometimes violently - regardless of whether the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers force al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or not. In military parlance, the term "special groups" refers to presumed breakaway Mahdi factions whose main sponsor is Iran.
It's interesting that Shiite factions like Sadr's militia got little attention for years, despite major operations against them since 2004. It's mostly been Sunni insurgent groups like al-Qaeda, a blanket term used for Sunni insurgents to justify continued war. They're still a threat, according to Petraeus' testimony this week, but not as much as Shiite 'special groups.'
It's true that they are a threat and likely the biggest one, but this enlightenment comes at a time when Senator McCain continues to align al-Qaeda with Iran as well as the Mahdi Army, which begs the question: who isn't swimming in cash and weapons supplied by Iran?
This is very dangerous indeed, as it shows a clear line of insinuations that Iran is becoming the biggest threat to security and stability in Iraq, from supplying deadly EFPs to Iraqi militias to training insurgents on how to effectively fight Americans. It's very dangerous because of the deliberate action of convincing the public that the Iraqi insurgency isn't home grown but foreign supplied. Therefore, the way to win in Iraq is to go after Iran.
I'm not going to debate the authenticity of these claims, as they are likely true. But that doesn't take away from the fact that these attacks are made in Iraq, a bogged down battle sucking up resources from Afghanistan. Iraq is a vicious cycle of recruitment opportunities and battleground experience. Our very presence affords both to the enemy as the Taliban and (real) al-Qaeda go unchecked in the mountains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It makes me curious if Iranian influence would exist in Iraq if we weren't there. They're grudgingly accepted for now because of our presence, but Iraq has a clear history of belligerence toward foreign visitors. If we were to leave, there would be little need for rockets aimed at the Green Zone or caches of EFPs. Iranian influence would dwindle with an absence of an enemy. And Iraq could start that slow build to some kind of stabilization without us as the wild card, or the training wheels. Then we could get to work on our true enemies: the Taliban and al-Qaeda elements in Afghanistan.
The movie Stop Loss premiered nationwide yesterday, and in its wake I was asked how I thought soldiers were portrayed in war movies. Two days before I saw the movie, I offered my view and what I predicted would be the same with Stop Loss:
Hollywood has pigeonholed soldiers as "southern rednecks" or "dregs of society" when in reality the armed forces are made up of everyone from California surfers to fast-talking Brooklynites.
"We serve for a variety of different reasons, like patriotism, education benefits or a way to get our lives back on track and earn a little discipline." he said. "From a filmgoer's standpoint, we joined to get out of our hick town or to blow stuff up."
Another misstep on the part of screenwriters and directors, Horton said, is portraying veterans as either seriously alcoholic or constantly battling post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Both are serious problems," he admitted. "But they don't affect every single soldier."
Everyone who goes to war and back is changed to some degree, Horton said, but judging from the trailers he's seen of "Stop-Loss," the film paints a picture that every soldier is adversely affected by war, which isn't the case, he said.
It seems not much has changed in Hollywood.
Warning: Spoilers Abound!
Directed by Kimberley Peirce (Boy's Don't Cry), Stop Loss is a fictional drama based on the real life retention policy of keeping solders in the military past their contractual obligation. I went to the show with a friend of mine, also a veteran, only a few miles away from the front gate at Ft. Lewis. Outside the box office, I could spot active duty members a mile away buying tickets.
Inside the theater, I looked around before the lights dimmed down. It wasn't the audience I expected. With the seats at little more than half capacity, I saw a lot of women in their twenties in groups of three or more. It seemed they were more interested in seeing a shirtless Ryan Phillippe than an examination of an abused military policy. There were several young men in the audience but they were clearly outnumbered by the fairer sex.
The movie opened up with the obligatory scenes of combat and losing buddies but soon derailed into melodrama when the main character, SSG King (played by Phillippe) finds that he is being stop lossed the day he is supposed to get out of the Army. He is ordered to report to a unit shipping out to Iraq only a month after he himself returned. After a yelling match with his scheming battalion commander, who orders him to the brig for his refusal of an order, he lays out two MPs and begins his journey from his small Texas town to Washington, D.C. to seek the refuge of his senator.
Accompanying him on the journey is the fiancé of his best friend, Michelle (Abbie Cornish). She sports a black eye for half of the movie after a fight with her soon to be husband Sgt. Shriver (Channing Tatum), who is battling PTSD like every single character in the film. In a deal cut with the battalion commander, he re-ups, sending Michelle over the edge and into the confused arms of SSG King, torn between his duty to his men and standing up for his own principes.
The story is interlaced with the tragic downfall of Private Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who suffers the most out of all the PTSD-afflicted soldiers. It also follows SSG King across the country, falling into a pit of despair after visiting the parents of a man killed on his watch, and a hospital visit with a member of his squad who became a double amputee following an explosion.
The movie has good good intentions approaching a delicate and controversial subject but it gets caught up in typical war movie clichés and melodrama. Hollywood has the idea that soldiers are dominated by their service 24/7 and in turn use military-speak at every turn, keep their hair skull tight and wear their dog tags with every outfit. You could hear the eyeballs in the audience roll after the repeated use of "watch your six" and other catch phrases not heard since the first month of basic training. Every character had a southern drawl and a penchant for drinking heavily while shooting shotguns (after scenes of square dancing and drunken brawls, of course), a stereotype that is profoundly inaccurate but has nevertheless been prevalent in war movies for years.
All of the sappy drama aside, it put into perspective some of the dangers faced by veterans when they return from war. Not many civilians know what the stop loss policy entails (if they know anything about it), and perhaps this movie will shine light on the subject and allow some room for deliberation around the water coolers of America. Unfortunately, it seems like the country is suffering from war fatigue, so there's no telling how much this movie will affect public discourse. As a war movie it barely passes, and as a drama it's too contrived despite its good intentions. But let's hope it achieves its goal: national understanding of the little known but unfortunate policy of what has been called 'a back-door draft.'
I want you to close your eyes for just a moment (not now, please keep reading!). Sit back, relax and clear your mind. Think about the purported success in Iraq and what it means. Do you think it's the surge? A new strategy? Why the sudden lull in violence? Sort them out the best you can.
Now, imagine this success as a tripod, supporting the base with three legs:
1. The surge/fifteen month deployments
2. The Sadr Ceasefire
3. Awakening Councils (The 'Concerned Local Nationals')
Any good tripod cannot stand unless all of its legs are strong and sturdy. Let's briefly look at each to check on their current situation.
1. The surge and fifteen month deployments
This is the biggest reason given by administration officials and conservative pundits. Following the bloodiest year in Iraq, violence began to taper all across the country as U.S. troops poured into Baghdad and set up outposts everywhere. The logic went like this: if Americans moved out of their cozy bases and into tiny outposts within the cities, they'd both gain the confidence of the locals and be able to react to violence quicker and more efficiently. There's no arguing that; it does work to a point. But the surge provided a trickle of extra hands over the first few months, not the supposed burst of 30,000 like it was believed. It was a combat brigade at a time, many who were scheduled to come anyway. 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne kicked off the strategy in January 2007, getting to Baghdad a little ahead of schedule. We fortified their first outpost. It was five months later when the full amount filtered in, the last being 3rd ID's combat aviation brigade. As they arrived, many brigades were supposed to rotate home (including mine). The increase helped, but marginally. It was good for Baghdad but contributed to the whack-a-mole effect, sending enemy fighters north and northeast, into Diyala and Nineveh Provinces (the former being the last stronghold for al-Qaeda, the latter being the latest last stronghold). In those places, violence has either increase or stayed the same. They have not seen the same reduction that Baghdad enjoyed for a time. From Baghdad, we chased the fighters to Diyala and its capital, Baqubah.
Enter the fifteen month deployment, which forced many brigades already in theater to stay an extra three months to overlap combat operations. This was implemented so the surge wouldn't all of a sudden be down many thousands of troops that already fulfilled their twelve month commitment. It was the only way to sustain the current levels, and even brigades coming in were leaving without a full year of dwell time.
Fifteen months is an incredible amount of time to spend in theater, especially with the degraded living conditions and increased danger that outpost living carries with it. The Dwell Time Amendment failed to pass last year, in an attempt to give soldiers the same amount of time at home that they spent at war. Lately, there has been talk of going back to twelve months, but that won't even be decided until this winter.
2. The Sadr Ceasefire
This has been glossed over by the traditional media since the Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr announced his ceasefire on August 31, 2007. Brandon Friedman has been on point regarding this subject, creating a timeline that shows Sadr's ceasefire mirrors a sudden plummet of American casualties. His ceasefire, originally six months long, was extended in February, but you can't quite tell from the latest protests, sit ins and Iraqi checkpoint takeovers happening recently. Iraqi Army troops have been in quite a few skirmishes in the oil rich town of Basra, a city that is struggling to cope with its loss of British troops and one of the first tests of the Iraqi Army to hold their own ground. It appears that isn't quite happening due to the Sadrists, making demands their comrades are released from prison. Their ceasefire seemed to come at a time when they needed political leverage and become part of the national voice. Now that they're regrouped and redoubled with men and weapons, they might be able to muscle their way into political discourse.
The showdown with al-Sadr has been brewing for months but has accelerated since parliament agreed in February to hold provincial elections by the fall. The U.S. had been pressing for new elections to give Sunnis, who boycotted the last provincial balloting three years ago, a chance for greater power.
Al-Sadr's followers have also been eager for elections, believing they can make significant gains in the oil-rich Shiite south at the expense of Shiite parties with close U.S. ties.
Sadrists have accused rival Shiite parties, which control Iraqi security forces, of engineering the arrests to prevent them from mounting an effective election campaign.
They also complain that few of their followers have been granted amnesty under a new law designed to free thousands held by the Iraqis and Americans.
"The police and army are being used for political goals, while they should be used for the benefits of all the Iraqi people," said Nassar al-Rubaei, leader of the Sadrist bloc in parliament. "If these violations continue, a huge popular eruption will take place that no power on Earth can stop."
Aligned with the Iraqi government, Sadr never hesitated to take on American troops before. The ceasefire seems all but over at this point, in an area not occupied by American troops and only watched by British forces. There's no telling what could happen if this spills out into the whole country.
3. Awakening Councils (The 'Concerned Local Nationals')
My favorite: former murderers of American troops calling a truce to take on other Sunni radicals like al Qaeda in Iraq (or as I call them, al-Qaeda Lite). This was also implemented while I was in Diyala Province. My initial reaction when dealing with these people was that they would ultimately go back to fighting with us when either al Qaeda Lite was ousted or they had enough of us. After all, it was routine for us to accidently kill their members, stupidly waving around AK-47s in the streets. We gave them yellow reflective belts and vests to sort them out, but the killing keeps happening. And they're getting pretty tired of it.
But as the Sons of Iraq increasingly shed blood for the country, they are growing increasingly disenfranchised with the political rewards. Iraqis, including the Awakening Councils, want peace and stability, but as in any form of participatory government, they also want power. In Diyala province recently, members of the Sons of Iraq abandoned their checkpoints in protest of the Iraqi central government's choice for police chief, who happened to be Shiite. That's just one minor example of the swelling tide of political discontent emerging from the Awakening Councils, as many simply see no purpose in continuing the fight as the Awakening came with few rewards. Adding to the complexity is the tenuous cease-fire by the fighters loyal to the Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who many of the Sawha forces fear.
With the Sadr ceasefire unraveling before our eyes, how will this affect the Sunni groups, whose credit to cutting down violence the past year is now in the hands of a radical Shiite cleric? They grudgingly did our bidding when they were getting paid, but even that is an issue. It's not a matter of if they'll turn on us, but when. They promised to continue fighting us, and it'll happen when they've had enough. I shudder to think of the day when our 'allies' turn their guns on our unsuspecting backs.
All three legs of this tripod have a common thread: they all were created in 2007. The administration and commanders have control over only a third, the one they acknowledge the most: the surge and the fifteen month deployment. The other two legs depend largely on our actions but will be decided by men like Sadr and those in control of the Awakening councils. It's not looking good for the other two. Take away one leg and the tripod of success will fall. Unfortunately, it seems that only one leg will be left to support it.
It comes as a surprise when the right-wing blogosphere starts to fend off attacks aimed at Senator McCain, who to them was in a dead heat between Hillary and a wet paper bag as the best possible presidential candidate. As the presumptive Republican nominee, they have now rallied behind him, putting party before country. And that means defending any off the wall, batshit crazy thing he says. This has been posted below by Brandon Friedman, but demands to be seen again:
In a whisper that is more mysterious than Bill Murray's murmur into Scarlett Johannson's ear in Lost In Translation, Joe Lieberman let the man know he was off the rocker. The idea that the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq (which isn't true blue al-Qaeda in the first place) was being trained and aided by the Iranian government is a complete fallacy. While Sunnis and Shiites can learn to get along, they have never been proven to work together in a 'tag-team' against American and Iraqi forces. Their objectives simply contrast too sharply. Sunni groups like al-Qaeda seek U.S. withdrawal and use suicide bombings and civilian assassinations as their tactics, seeing the Shiite-majority Iraqi government as heretics of Islam and on the same level of Americans, if not worse. They want a Sunni-led state, something Iran opposes (if their war in the 80s is any indication). In some neighborhoods, Sunnis and Shiites can live side by side, but not in the case of an insurgency. The notion that a Shiite government like Iran is assisting a group whose end goal is an extremist Sunni caliphate is ludicrous at best and dangerous at worst. It underscores McCain's failure to understand foreign policy beyond Rovian talking points. The purported relationship only exists to legitimize military action against Iran by linking them to the ever useful al-Qaeda boogymen, something that didn't stick to Iraq, and hopefully it doesn't stick to Iran.
Pointing out how wrong McCain is used to be a favorite sport for pundits like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, but now they say he's wrong for admitting he's wrong. Perpetually confused bloggers will point to unsubstantiated claims of Iran cuddling up to al-Qaeda, using the defense of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' While that works in some cases (like he points out wrongly, with the Awakening groups), he fails to realize everyone involved is an enemy of each other and not likely to work together any time soon.
McCain's campaign and newly birthed lap dogs will have you believe every country has ties to al-Qaeda. This connection was never fully brought up by the administration (mostly because its patently ridiculous), but now it exists and is defended like it's been around for years. The Weekly Standard sirens would have loved, loved to see a war with Iran by now. Parading this aspect of McCain's foreign policy shortsightedness only after his slip is just more evidence of a claim without legs to stand on.
If you're reading these exact words on this website, then congratulations, you can count yourself a member of an exclusive section of society. Only one in four Americans can proudly say they belong to it. The prerequisites, though, aren't very difficult to maintain. The only requirement? Knowing how many of your fellow countrymen have died in a five year old war.
That was a question in a survey of 1,508 adults between February 20-24 conducted by the Pew Research Center:
Since the start of military action in Iraq, about how many U.S. military personnel have been killed? To the best of your knowledge, have there been around:
A. 2,000 deaths
B. 3,000 deaths
C. 4,000 deaths
D. 5,000 deaths
In a month or so, the number will reach 4000 Americans killed. Of course, only 28% of Americans know that.
What's to blame? News coverage? The public? From AFP:
"The drop in awareness comes as press attention to the war has waned," the report said.
A scant three percent of news stories in February were devoted to the Iraq war, compared with around 15 percent in July last year, and the US public has not perceived the war, which began nearly five years ago, as a top news story since October, the report noted.
When I came home from Iraq six months ago yesterday, news and interest seemed to follow me. A simultaneous outcry in the media and our government that the surge was working made it okay for Americans to tune out last fall. In fact, according to the survey, more people know what the Dow is currently at (31% guessed 12,000 points). I'd struggle to explain what the Dow is exactly, but more people are interested in their pocketbooks and reality television instead of men and women fighting, and in nearly 4,000 cases, dying.
One could argue that this is a vicious cycle set by the media, reporting what only the public wants to hear. But they're only reactionary to apathy and ignorance. The Iraq War isn't sexy anymore. No more testimonies by General Petraeus, no more speeches about the surge. Just anonymous men and women in the desert for fifteen months at a time while America spends its stimulus checks at the mall.
Being a part of modern history and coming back to society was a surreal experience. I couldn't put my finger on the feeling until a month after I returned and I was at home for a couple of weeks. I looked around to see signs of a war raging across the ocean. I had to dig deep for any news and figures from a place I was just two months prior. When folks I met found out I just got back from Iraq, they asked if I was in Baghdad. Some asked if I was in Iran. When I told them I spent the last five months in Baqubah, they'd respond with a disappointed "oh." It was obvious they hadn't heard of the city that CNN declared the most dangerous place on Earth while I was patrolling it with a five man squad. They hadn't heard of the city where two of my friends and twenty of my comrades saw their last moments of life in a war forgotten, ignored and passed over by the public that sent them there.
Society hasn't been compelled to care. There should be an intrinsic amount of empathy and understanding for a country that sends an all volunteer force to war, for there exists a very basic relationship between the American public and its military: go to war, and you'll be taken care of. With veteran's health care in a dismal state, education assistance that's more of an insult than a benefit and two wars being fought with 1/10th of the forces needed to accomplish the goals set by the administration, we seem to have lost our way. The first step is always information, which is getting cut short by the media that is acting on the willful ignorance of the masses.
There is one thought that stays in the back of my brain day and night. 3% of the news in February was dedicated to the Iraq war. That number is incredibly low.
A report about hearing loss in combat came and went quietly (no pun intended) the other day, detailing what it called a military epidemic:
Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the fight against terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear. Nearly 70,000 of the more than 1.3 million troops who have served in the two war zones are collecting disability for tinnitus, a potentially debilitating ringing in the ears, and more than 58,000 are on disability for hearing loss, the VA said.
"The numbers are staggering," said Theresa Schulz, a former audiologist with the Air Force, past president of the National Hearing Conservation Association and author of a 2004 report titled "Troops Return With Alarming Rates of Hearing Loss."
Perhaps very recently they've started to evaluate hearing more closely, but when I returned from Iraq six months ago, we sat down for a simple hearing test like the one we did before we deployed. My roommate already was legally deaf in one ear and wasn't supposed to deploy, but he did anyway. He was on a patrol when an IED targeting dismounts went off right next to him, sending him sprawling to the ground with a concussion. He sat out for a few weeks to recover.
Back in the states, hearing in his bad ear was even worse than when he left. The only compensation, he was told, was free hearing aids for life.
The rest of us weren't lucky enough to receive that kind of slap in the face. Tests that showed degenerated hearing were looked at with suspicion and doubt, as if we had overstated our problems.
This is a video to show the kind of noises that go on during combat. I set my camera on a ledge to capture it, firing alongside two riflemen and a SAW gunner:
The SAW was on my left as was my rifle (I'm left handed). I had a trick where I covered my ear with my right index finger when my rifle was resting on the ledge. This did little but was far better than the cumbersome foam earplugs we were given.
It's too little, too late for those of us who were already given our hearing to the wars. I'm now in a customer service job where I answer the phone constantly, and I can't use my left ear with the receiver. What I received from my government wasn't a disability check, but the assurance it was going to get worse, not better.
This past week, members of VoteVets.org spent a fews days in Washington, D.C. to meet with key senators on issues that affect active duty soldiers and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. We met with the legislative aide of Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA). We also hand delivered a petition to House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), signed by nearly 17,000 soldiers, veterans and family members of veterans calling for an investigation into the practices of Sioux Manufacturing, caught red handed shortchanging kevlar in 2.2 million helmets for soldiers on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been contracted to produce armor for the new MRAP vehicles, giving anyone who is riding them at this moment a feeling of doubt and reluctance, I'm sure.
One of the most important issues we talked about to these key senators was the revised G.I. Bill and its key components, which include:
Complete tuition costs for the most expensive in-state public school, averaging $1900/month. The current G.I. Bill max is at $1100
Living Allowance for students enrolled, paid on a scale of a married E-5 living in the area
Available to any member who was active duty or reserve that has served at least three months active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Maximum coverage for three years plus of active duty
Retroactive to anyone currently drawing G.I. Bill funds. They would also receive their initial input of $1,200
Sounds good right? Of course, anything meant to benefit war veterans is strongly opposed by administration officials. From The Stars & Stripes:
Defense officials are alarmed by the very real prospect that Congress this year will enact the robust GI Bill education plan designed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. One Defense official, who declined to be named, described the bill as a "retention killer" for the all-volunteer military.
Webb reintroduced his bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S 22), last week with changes that attracted strong bipartisan support, including the endorsement of Sen. John Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"I'm just going to go full bore on this thing," Warner told Military Update in a phone interview.
That's a worrisome vow for Defense officials who believe enhanced postservice education benefits, particularly if enacted while troops face multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, could trigger an exodus severe enough to put the viability of the volunteer military at risk.
No one disputes Webb's claim that his enhanced GI Bill would boost recruiting sharply. But a Defense official said it also would encourage thousands of young servicemembers, trained at great expense, to separate after completing their initial service obligation to attend college full time.
In an interview, Webb described such arguments as "absurd."
It's not surprising that the folks over at the DOD are out of touch with today's active duty soldiers and veterans. They cannot wrap their head around the fact that many people who join are looking for education benefits, a change of pace to their current life, or just want to do their time. Others looked forward to a career that simply didn't work out. These are the people that are separating from the military. A growing amount of soldiers that would have stayed in are also leaving because of a needless war turning five years old this month. Two, three and four deployments have been enough for them. They see careers in a field they want a little more desirable than foot patrols in Baghdad for fifteen months.
The current incentive for joining is a paltry bonus and a chance to put a down payment on a house, equaling the maximum G.I. Bill allowance. In his State of the Union address this year, President Bush announced only one tweak to the G.I. Bill: tranferability of the benefits to family members. That's a kick in the head to combat veterans.
There is a fundamental lack of understanding with Defense officials about the purpose of the revised G.I. Bill. It's a measured cost of war for the rehabilitation of combat soldiers. An education gives them both a way to further and discover a new career and to reintergrate into society in a healthy way. Too many veterans come back from war, leave the service and are stuck back in their hometown. Their friends have moved on, and they still can't afford college. And these are the men and women who have done more than enough for this country, and it's high time to recognize their efforts.
The current administration and the next one needs take a hard look at itself and find out what would cause soldiers to leave the military en masse: education benefits they deserve, or 100 more years of sustained combat.
Call your state Senators to tell them you want them to cosponsor the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S 22) when it reaches the floor soon. This bipartisan effort for overdue assistance can be in danger of veto if Congressional members don't realize the importance of it.
When debating right versus wrong on the topic of the Iraq war, military service usually comes into play when talking to or about civilians who have no prior experience in the military yet advocate a war not totally understood by them. LT Nixon discussed taking the moral high ground on the issue by using service as a trump card. I agree to an extent, but there comes a time when a conflict is sustained for so long that the tiny force used to wage it becomes unable to continue due to physical, emotional and moral fatigue.
Yesterday the Christian Science Monitor reported that more troops would be in Iraq this summer than expected, bringing the hope for a gradual reduction in the number of soldiers in combat operations to an end. As for Afghanistan, the amount of soldiers there this July will be the highest since the invasion in 2001.
This is especially disconcerting because the number of recruits for the military hasn't grown with the demand of fresh bodies needed in both countries. The surge and the fifteen month extensions were temporary solutions that aren't looking so temporary anymore. Secretary Gates spoke to military spouses at Ft. Hood and acknowledged that 15 month tours were exhausting, hoping to return to one year tours at the end of 2008. At the beginning of the year, it's a little disheartening to think that it's only possible to rectify this problem by winter.
The article goes on to mention the recent interview of 3,400 military officers by Foreign Policy Magazine, finding a widespread belief that the war was spreading the military 'dangerously thin.' The problem doesn't end at our military at its breaking point, but rather extends to the failure by our government and population to recognize it and come up with solutions.
There is dwindling support for the war across the nation, that much is certain. What isn't certain is why these die hard holdouts aren't joining the cause and enlisting in the military to support the war that is made or broken by the output of blood, sweat and tears from citizen soldiers. Some people probably shouldn't be given a rifle (Michelle Malkin would either wimper outside the wire or kill the first Muslim she sees), but there is a movement of young conservatives that are for the war, loafers and Brooks Brothers, but they're against enlistment. You can find a platoon's worth of men at the Weekly Standard, a Republican magazine staffed by young, affluent men with great interest in the Global War on Terrorism and fighting it vicariously through their countrymen. Young Americans for Freedom has this call to arms on their website:
The trend is disturbing. If you listen to the mainstream news, young people around the country are surging to become activists for more government, more taxes, more political correctness, and a foreign policy that is destructive to U.S. interests. Moreover, they advocate stripping the individual of their inherent rights and focusing on group rights.
There is some merit to these reports. The forces against freedom have gotten better organized over the past decade. There's a lot of cash from the government and others going into organizing this effort.
Across the country, however, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), America's oldest, largest, and most active conservative/libertarian youth organization, is redoubling its efforts to fight for less government, more freedom, and a foreign policy that does not bend over backwards to dictators that would love to kill America's freedom.
If you're interested in helping us win this battle, please contact us. If you do join us, you'll find that you will be in the center of this battle with a unique and great network of fellow activists busy promoting freedom.
Sounds like a great group of guys.
The threat of a draft is kept at bay because our volunteer force is adequately filled in peacetime and smaller conflicts. By waging a two front war, we're quickly getting to the pont where we have to decide: volunteer, draft or go home. Going home is not an option to these people, so I want to know from them:
As our military approaches the point where more people leave than come in, will you answer the call and enlist? Because failing that, sometime far into the future, when your grandchildren ask what you did in the Great Global War On Terrorism, you can say, I got dressed up nice and heard the great Jonah Goldberg speak at a luncheon for three hours.
Or, perhaps, that is enough to protect this land of ours.
Alright guys, everybody pack it up. Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, keep it real. And don't forget to turn out the light on your way out.
Someone in Washington uttered these enlightened words of epiphany:
Turkey's military assault into northern Iraq will not solve the terrorist problem there.
Who said those incredibly rational and reasonable words? Was it:
A. Nancy Pelosi
B. Harry Reid
C. Secretary Gates
D. Homeless Dan, D.C.'s most prestigious homeless political analyst
"I think all our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows us that while dealing with a terrorist problem does require security operations, it also requires economic and political initiatives, [someone] told reporters. They said a consistent message from the U.S. to the Turkish government is that military efforts must be supplemented by other political and economic outreach to Kurds.
"After a certain point people become inured to military attacks," they said, "and if you don't blend them with these kinds of nonmilitary initiatives, then at a certain point the military efforts become less and less effective."
Forehead. Slap.
The quotes above show the hard truth to swallow about our own blunders into Iraq in 2003. All the officials, analysts, media and spokesmen talked about it being over in a matter of weeks, of being greeted like liberators. Five years after the fact, we're telling Turkey that it's a really, really bad idea to use the military to make political change.
Now they tell us!
Only after a bunch of events coming together (a Sadr ceasefire, Awakening Groups and the surge) have we been able to make some headway. But we haven't figured out the political means yet, which was the whole point of all three of those things. So now we're telling an ally that they shouldn't do what we did, but rather use diplomatic and political means we haven't figured out yet.
Is this arrogant and insane to anyone else? The PKK is nothing new. It has been fighting Turkey for twenty years and we obviously had no plan to deal with them, neutral to our plight in Iraq but belligerent to our allies in Turkey. They're deemed terrorists by the administration, but they're in a comparatively stable region. A problem indeed. Instead of a plan, we're letting Turkey run amok. The PKK has inflicted Turkish casualties as they're being assaulted from the ground and air with bombers and artillery. And all we can say to them is hurry up. When asked how long Turkey would be in northern Iraq, the mystery person quoted above simply said "the shorter the better."
For a nation of principles and morals, we sure don't mind asking countries to not do what we've been doing for five years.
The answer above?
"In terms of the current operation, "I would hope it would be short, that it would be precise and avoid the loss of innocent life, and that they leave as quickly as they can accomplish the mission."
Newsweek's blog Soldier's Home posted today about the connection between Senator McCain and veterans. They quoted VoteVets.org's own Jon Soltz on the topic:
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time.
McCain said winning the war would be "easy."
Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war - repeatedly saying it would be over soon.
Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
And goes on to quote a 60 year old Navy veteran who's all for the Maverick:
Having spent time in the military gives you a better appreciation and more respect for people serving in the military," said Doug McNea, a 60-year-old Navy veteran about McCain, who would ultimately win the California primary. "It gives you a better understanding of the sacrifices that veterans make and the long periods of family separation.
Er. Not so much.
I sent my own words to the author on how many veteran's feel about McCain:
Hi David, I'm Alex Horton, a front page writer for VetVoice.com, the blog for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and a project of VoteVets.org. I read your assessment on the support of active duty soldiers and veterans for John McCain's presidency. I call tell you from all the soldiers I know, most are conservative and a sizable portion are liberal, but they all share the opinion that the war in Iraq has gone too far and we need to leave it up to the Iraqis. Many of them voted for Bush in 2004 (like I did), but many will be voting Democrat this time around. The central issue for many of them is the war and veteran's issues, and McCain's rhetoric and voting record contrasts sharply with their beliefs. Well all want to leave Iraq yesterday, but McCain has pledged to stay for 10,000 years. He also was in support of the fifteen month extension and against relegating deployments back to twelve months, which is straining the minds and bodies of troops facing multiple deployments during supposed success in Iraq. For a brigade that got extended eleven months into our deployment, you can imagine our unhappiness with that policy while we were over tasked and undermanned in Diyala Province.
John McCain is a decorated veteran, but his bold insinuations that he would pre-emptively attack Iran while already fighting two wars does not sit well with veterans or active duty servicemen and women, just like his current views and plans. Most of the Iraq veterans I know will not be pulling the lever for him in this coming election because of that.
You can send your own words about McCain to David Botti at soldiershomeblog at yahoo dot com.
I'm sure that anyone who has deployed knew someone that wasn't supposed to be in a combat zone because of their mental or physical condition. My former roommate was legally deaf in one ear, a paralyzing disability for an infantryman to have. The possibilities were for him to be placed on rear detachment on Ft. Lewis or get sent to Iraq and put in a non-combat mission. What happened was the third, unethical option: he was sent to patrol the streets of Mosul and Baghdad and man the platoon radio. This would be akin to a legally blind man sent to Iraq as a forward observer.
Sometimes a disability isn't easily seen with the eyes or measured with equipment. The Denver Post uncovered a story about a soldier who was pulled out of a hospital while being treated for bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse, but instead of being held stateside or being medically discharged, he was put on a plane bound for Iraq.
The soldier, who asked not to be identified because of the stigma surrounding mental illness and because he will seek employment when he leaves the Army, said he checked himself into Cedar Springs on Nov. 9 or Nov. 10 after he attempted suicide while under the influence of alcohol. He said his treatment was supposed to end Dec. 10 but his commanding officers showed up at the hospital Nov. 29 and ordered him to leave.
"I was pulled out to deploy," said the soldier, who has three years in the Army and has served a tour in Iraq.
Soldiers from Fort Carson and across the country have complained they were sent to combat zones despite medical conditions that should have prevented their deployment.
Late last year, Fort Carson said it sent 79 soldiers who were considered medical "no-gos" overseas. Officials said the soldiers were placed in light-duty jobs and are receiving treatment there. So far, at least six soldiers have been returned.
An e-mail sent Jan. 3 by Capt. Scot Tebo, the brigade surgeon, says the 3rd Brigade Combat Team had "been having issues reaching deployable strength" and that some "borderline" soldiers were sent overseas.
The article highlights that this is not an isolated incident at Ft. Carson but rather a nationwide epidemic of sending physically and mentally unfit soldiers into combat, which is a direct result of the strain of an all-volunteer force facing multiple deployments. These units are scraping the bottom of the barrel to put warm bodies on airplanes bound for the Middle East, even if it means putting other soldiers and Iraqi civilians at risk.
The failure of the chain of command to properly safeguard individual soldiers and the rest of the force is particularly disheartening. Knowingly sending a bipolar soldier to Iraq who claimed homicidal and suicidal tendencies shows a breakdown in the bind of professionalism and trust the senior officers and NCOs must have for their junior soldiers to sustain morale. With a chain of command like that, who needs insurgents?
His superiors made light of his mental condition, only concentrating on his alcohol abuse, which isn't grounds from stopping a deployment.
The soldier was placed under supervision for a day and a half before his Dec. 1 deployment because, his commanders told him, they worried he was a desertion risk.
Then the soldier was escorted to Evans Army Community Hospital to collect three months of medication - Lamictal for treatment of bipolar disorder; Seroquel, an anti-psychotic; and Klonopin for anxiety and mood disorders.
He said a doctor at the hospital lowered the dosage of his prescriptions and told him he was on medications that would keep him from deploying.
"I had chain-of-command waiting outside, escorts who were waiting there and telling me to hurry up and get out. So I was just scared if I put up an argument.
"I told him I was fine and everything was fine," the soldier said.
The soldier said that at the time of discharge from Cedar Springs, his "dual diagnosis" was not discussed, only his alcoholism. Two weeks before he was sent to rehab, the Army had cleared him to go to Iraq.
He was, in essence, smuggled into Iraq under illegal circumstances and given a rifle with live ammunition. The Army was certain of his condition by giving him a no weapon profile, but he broke it while out on the range. And he was still sent home after all the commotion, ruckus and back office dealing.
This is what we have to show after five years of a bungled, mismanaged war: sending over soldiers unfit for duty, threatening the lives of everyone around them while touting recruiting and reenlistment goals. If this doesn't show a personnel crisis, I don't know what can.
Hundreds of members of Sunni awakening councils in Diyala province held at least three demonstrations Saturday. At one rally in downtown Baqouba, a banner was hoisted above the crowd reading "al-Qureyshi targets Sunnis and kidnaps women" - referring to Gen. Ghanim al-Qureyshi, director general of Diyala police.
This comes as no surpise as we approach the one year mark of working with insurgents-turned-police in Diyala Province. I was there during the start of the uneasy alliance last spring and we really had no idea what to make of our new cohorts. What was even more unsure was how to identify them in the streets, leaving many of them casualties by our own machine guns and helicopters. Within months they grew in experience and numbers. We had ways to identify them using the PT reflective belts bought from the on base PX.
But they quickly grew out of our control and began stealing cars and intimidating locals. We left the dangerous pact in September, wondering how far their area of influence would rise.
This string of protests arises from the feeling that the CLCs should be a legitimized force, not a temporary one paid daily by the U.S. government. It also is indicative of their willingness to cooperate with provincial authorities on the other side of the sectarian spectrum. There is a slight majority of Sunnis in Baqubah and the rest of Diyala, but the police force is mostly Shiite. When cooperation is needed between the two factions, there is an obvious division between the two groups. The claim of al-Qureyshi's men targeting Sunnis is not too far from reason: we witnessed first hand the kind of violence the Sunnis of Diyala suffered when the Shiite police forces were taking it upon themselves to rectify years of subjugation brought on by Saddam.
American officials are downplaying the recent protests, pointing to similar demonstrations in the past. It's believed by the administration (and highly contentious in a lot of circles) that the CLCs battling al-Qaeda is one of the biggest reasons for a drop in violence. They want to hold onto that fact (and the CLCs) for as long as possible. But in making the excuse that these protests have happened before, they fail to get the point that they happen at all. By using the CLCs and Awakening Councils as a silver bullet, they've created a monster far beyond control. Once promised to be assimilated into the Iraqi Police and Army, they're now being denied because of sectarian differences. This is a slap in the face to a force that has operated with more motivation and gusto than the ISF.
Protesting is the first step for these former insurgents. With a feeling of being used and put out, it won't take long to realize their temporary usefulness to the Americans and the Iraqi security forces. At that point, there's not much else to do except go back to the good old days. And the administration, in turn, will run out of red herrings to throw into the faces of the public.
(Click on discuss to vote on how you feel about the Concerned Local Citizens.)
The US intelligence chief has said that the al Qaeda is leaving Iraq to establish its cells in other countries.
The al Qaeda is using tribal regions of Pakistan to train terrorist to wage attacks in Afghanistan, the Mideast, Africa and the US.
"Al Qaeda remains the preeminent threat against the United States," a foreign news agency quoted Mike McConnell as telling the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Mike went on to say that less that 100 Qaeda terrorists have left Iraq to establish their cells in other countries, and it may deploy resources to mount attacks outside the country.
Schoo! We dodged that looming crisis. Al-Qaeda, the number one threat to Iraq's future and our biggest enemy in Iraq (according to the administration), is on the run to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So it's time for a surge in those places, right?
(Intelligence chief Mike McConnell) said that violence in Iraq will not end in a year, adding, "It's going to be a long time to bring it to closure."
Ohhh.
The Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, said the American troops are prohibited by Pakistan from pursuing the Taliban and the al Qaeda fighters who cross the border to attack in Afghanistan.
The surge is working, the insurgency is in its last throes and once we leave Iraq a staggering success, we won't be back, promised Secretary Gates:
The United States will not promise to defend Iraq nor seek permanent bases there under a planned agreement on future relations between the two states, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.
"The status-of-forces agreement that is being discussed will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq and neither will any strategic framework agreement," Gates told a U.S. Senate panel.
"We do not want, nor will we seek, permanent bases in Iraq," he later told a U.S. House of Representatives committee.
It's about time, right? We seem to finally be putting the Iraqi military and government into a 'sink or swim' scenario. A dependent, weak-willed government was never our goal. The training wheels are finally coming off in Bush's final year.
That is, until I read the bottom half of the article. The rules and protections outlined by the agreement between the two governments will be shown to the Senate, but it will not be submitted for approval by the administration. This worries Senate Democrats, as the agreement could stretch well past Bush's term, becoming a burden to the next president who will be forced to clean up the mess. If McCain is elected, he should have no problem keeping troops there for a hundred years. But if it's a democrat, they'd have a hell of a time pulling out of Iraq without looking like we're breaking a promise. With the purported success going on, it would seem that they 'broke' Iraq after receiving it in such good shape in 2008, after temporary deals with insurgent groups and Sadr's ceasefire. The lipstick can't stay on the pig forever.
We may soon find out when we'll finally get out of Iraq and finally take care of Afghanistan's mega-crisis of a Taliban resurgence, but one thing is certain:
According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, the al Qaeda continues to present a "critical threat to the homeland".
Mueller also warned that "homegrown terrorists" who are inspired by its propaganda on the Internet also poses a threat.
A new front of the War on Terror! Let it be known that I will be an intrepid foot soldier in Operation Just Kause, also known as Operation JK.
There exists a mantra so cliché, so endlessly hollow that it practically holds little meaning in 2008, as interest in the duel wars has waned considerably since the respective invasions many years ago. I speak, of course, about "Support The Troops." Countless people throughout the country slapped yellow ribbons on their car adorned with the slogan with scarcely a thought, absolving themselves of the guilt of being the nation that sent their soldiers to one war of reason (Afghanistan) with numbers too few, and another war (Iraq) that no one can rationally explain. Hey, don't look at me, I support the troops.
There are organizations out there who have taken an active interest in the lives of soldiers, post service. The Fund For Veteran's Education is a non-profit that awards scholarships to war veterans that are currently enrolled in college or a technical school. One of the biggest misconceptions civilians have about the military is that education is completely paid for once you leave the service. The common phrase used is "free college," and that is a myth that The Fund For Veteran's Education wants to bust wide open.
That was the case, lo, so many years ago. The G.I. Bill of 1944 sent eight million veterans of World War II to college, creating what is now called the middle class. The success of it was two-fold: the nation gave its veterans a shot at a successful life after they got home from the battlefields of Europe and Japan to pursue higher education. Save the world and go to school - not a bad deal. The result was a staggering boon to the economy: for every dollar contributed to education for veterans, the country got back five to twelve dollars back in renvenue and other taxes.
The veterans from Iraq and Afganistan have faced multiple tours in an all volunteer military stretched thin by a two front war, yet the promise made by this country to look after them when they return is largely and shamefully unkept. 375,000 men and women separate from the military every year to resume their civilian lives, many with hopes of getting an education. The G.I. Bill was meant to ease that transition and give back to those who honorably served, but that is not the case in twenty-first century America. After a mind boggling amount of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to cut through to start getting money for college, veterans from active duty are paid a maximum of $1,100 dollars a month for three years, for a maximum of $39,636. This only takes a bite out of tuition costs, which have steadily risen over the years as the G.I. Bill remains largely stagnant. The average cost for a four year ride at an in-state school is $65,428. Out of state costs are $105,216, and if you want to get your money's worth at a private college or university, you'll be hamming it up with the rich kids while you rack up debt with average costs at $133,204.
Ninety percent of enlisted soldiers don't hold a degree and in may cases enlist for the benefits of higher education, which they'll only partially receive thanks to this legislation that lingers in an era of peacetime. But we're at war now, or at least the military is. The country hasn't been asked for a draft while 1.6 million of us do the bidding of a largely ungrateful nation. To move on with our lives we must carry a psychological burden, and because of the current G.I. Bill, we will carry a financial one as well.
The G.I. Bill in its current state is the shame of a nation, a Congress, and an administration that continues to dishonor those who have served. To do your part, contact your Senator to let them know you support S. 22, the Post 9/11 Veterans' Education Assistance Act from Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel. And contribute to the The Fund For Veteran's Education so that a lucky veteran can receive a scholarship thanks to you. If every citizen contributed one dollar to the fund, over four thousand veterans could get a four year degree at an in-state school.
If you really 'support the troops,' you must support them during and after service. That means working toward a new G.I. Bill, the same one that helped the Greatest Generation become great.
The GI Bill gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down. -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt
They've seen the horrors of war up front and personal. They've slept under the stars and in abandoned buildings under constant threat from insurgents wishing to do them harm. But you won't hear their tales of courage under fire or how vital they are to coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They're interpreters, and more than seven thousand of them have not only broken the language barrier between Americans and Iraqis, they've provided priceless insight into the nuances of Arab culture important for a counter-insurgency to be successful. Bullets and bombs take a back seat to providing security for neighborhoods harassed by extremists. When locals learn to trust the word of Americans, they open up about enemy activity and cache locations. All of that begins with the interaction with interpreters.
'Terps' (the affectionate term given by soldiers) face incredible danger from insurgents that see them as traitors for working with Americans. Bounties placed on their head make them a very appealing target for militias. In many cases, they don't show their face in the streets, often in the city they live in. So it came to be a shock to read that the U.S. is far behind the Danish government in granting asylum for interpreters that have risked their lives and the lives of their families to help coalition efforts.
This month, Denmark will complete the process of granting asylum to 120 Iraqi interpreters who worked for Danish troops in Iraq, as well as their families. "Interpreters who had been working for the Danish military were given the choice of resettling within [Iraq] with financial help, of being given jobs at Danish mission in the region, or of going to Denmark to apply for asylum with their families," said Thomas Bille Winkel, representative of the Danish Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs. Most chose to go to Denmark, he said.
Denmark's rapid handling of its Iraqi employees and their families -- 364 people -- contrasts with the fate of thousands of Iraqis who have worked, or are working, for the U.S. government or its contractors in Iraq and who also wish to leave the country.
Initially, the U.S. asylum initiative covered only 50 individuals a year beginning in 2006, rising to 500 annually for 2007 and 2008, and scheduled to drop back to 50 next year. Through September of last year, 429 Iraqi and 71 Afghan translators -- plus 482 of their family members -- have been admitted to the United States as refugees, according to the State Department. An additional 43 special visas for translators were issued in October and November.
The Danish government has granted an Iraqi citizen asylum for every four Danish soldiers that have served in Iraq. That is saying a lot about their government and also about ours, which not only rejects many claims, but requires a $375 fee and and interview with State Department and Homeland Security officials. Their fates rely on the decision from a department that refused en masse a call for mandatory Iraq service, calling it a potential death sentence. Interpreters and their families, more committed to victory in Iraq than the State Department officials, are left hung out to dry.
We should be leading the entire coalition in granting aslyum to these brave Iraqis for their valuable service, not turning them away with bureaucratic red tape. If this continues for long, potential terps will be put-off by our refusal to help them escape the potential violence after serving alongside American soldiers. And we need to fill their shoes: 250 translators have died helping U.S. forces since this bungled war began. We owe them more.
Coming and going yesterday was news that Anbar province, once a hotbed of insurgent activity, will be handed over over to Iraqi authorities within three months. When this happens, it'll be the tenth of eighteen provinces that have come under control of national forces. This is a vital step in recognizing the Iraqi Army and Police as legitimate beneficiaries of control over the region. The good news is being swamped with a contradictory announcement from the Iraqi defense minister that Iraq cannot handle internal security until 2012, and won't be able to defend its borders until 2018.
These announcements taken together bring up important questions. The article suggests that a contingent of U.S. forces will be retained in Anbar, but what will be the size of it? If it's going to be relatively the same as it is now, the confidence of the ISF in Ramadi and Fallujah will be suspect if they're not 'on their own.' Operations will definitely change with the realization that they're in a fight largely by themselves if the force will be drastically shorter, and the ever present question becomes more crucial and important: are the ISF ready for independent control?
The Awakening Councils were meant to be temporary and their members dissolved into the IA and IP, so what will become of them if U.S. forces relinquish control? American taxpayers are footing the bill for their weapons, vehicles and paychecks at the moment. If American soldiers and Marines take the bank with them, the Iraqi government will be responsible for holding up the councils financially. Their track record, of course, is less than stellar. Some in the council might realize burying an IED is more steady work than the promise of payment from a government they ideologically oppose in the first place.
Time will tell come spring, where a foreshadowing of Iraq's future will take place with the ceremonial hand-over of power in Anbar.
May 6th began for us like so many days before it, in the pre-dawn shadows of Baqubah. I had just returned from leave and was not too anxious to start patrolling again, with ten months of combat behind me and five left to push through. We searched houses, courtyards, roofs, trash piles and warm bodies throughout the morning. Our squad was designated to take a roof to overwatch other squads maneuvering. On the way to the trucks to grab cases of water, we heard the first reports of Alpha Company having hit an IED way down on Trash Alley, the road so dangerous we were usually barred from driving on it at all. We heard at least one man was dead and they were trying to get to any survivors.
On August 4, 2004, I turned my back on my family. They dropped me off at a hotel in Dallas so I could begin my Army career. As I walked toward the door, my dad said to me, "You're a man now, Alex." They didn't see that as I checked in, I had tears in my eyes. I had a few jobs before then, but it would be the first time leaving home. Needless to say, my environment was going to change a little.
I signed up for three years and sixteen weeks. The sixteen weeks accounted for basic training and infantry school. The three year countdown started when I graduated on November 24, 2004. I got my orders to go to Ft. Lewis, Washington to be in the "Stryker brigade." Well, what in the hell was a Stryker?
Pulling into Seattle for the first time, I was a little startled. I never saw trees so green and water so blue. I figured I'd like this place.
Whether a brother or sister, father or mother, grandfather grandmother, friend or foe, go out there and thank a veteran today. Do your best to understand what they had to do for the country and the comparative ease in which you live. Ask about their good friends they still keep close to their hearts. Don't approach the subject of what they did and saw in combat. It is the ultimate insult to the memory of our fallen. I write about those things because people ought to know what is happening to our men and women in a far away land. I can't write or talk about such horror without shedding a few tears. So please don't ask about the greusome details. Rather, ask them their most cherished memory during their time in the service.
"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.
