Regular readers here may have noticed the leave of absence I have taken for the last several months. I have been extremely busy with a new job and family obligations as well as personal issues that I am still working through. In March, due to an unfortunate chain of events, the Salt Lake Police Department helped me make the decision to spend some inpatient time working on my PTSD problems. Long story short, my boss almost ended up looking like an E-type silhouette on a Fort Benning ARM range. All in all it was for the best, and when I was released I felt much better than I ever have. I was placed back on PTSD meds (not by my choice) and directed to follow up with regular visits at the VA mental health facility. This started the downward spiral that I have become all to familiar with at the VA.
Now please understand that I have no problems with the VBA. They are a totally separate group that has been truly amazing. The VA Employment Coordinator and the office of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment have been wonderful. They always have the answers and they are always willing to put in the time to do whatever is necessary. I am back in school now thanks solely to Dan Crandall and his work at the VR&E office. I do plan on following up here soon with another article (much nicer) on the incredible job they do. I have been truly impressed.
No, my concern (outrage) is more with the hospital side of the VA. Please allow me to elaborate. I was released from inpatient care on the last day of March and immediately followed up with the VA. I have seen a psychiatrist once since then. I have been seeing a counselor there weekly with the exception of the weeks when she was on vacation. I still don't understand why they can't let me see someone else while she is gone. Every session I have been in with her (every session) she has had to take calls from other vets. So I sit there while she is on the phone. When I showed up for my appointment today (made 2 weeks ago) she informed me she only had 5-10 minutes. I canceled my follow up appointment. She had previously directed me to go to regular meetings at
North Star (their version of an AA program). But after meeting a few times with the head of the program he did not feel I needed to be there. At least that is my assumption. I asked about their meetings like she told me to, he talked to me a few times, but didn't really follow up, so I'm assuming everything is fine. I have gone to AA on my own though. Maybe if I stop going to VA mental health, and a few other veterans do as well, they will have more time.
I had to go in to my primary care physician at the Blue clinic back in April. They did a good bit of bloodwork due to ongoing liver issues. I get to find out the results next month from a different primary care PA. Why do I have to wait until August to find out about the results of tests done in April? Because if I waited to see my current primary care doctor it would be September. I'm scheduled to go back to the liver clinic in late August. The last time I was there they didn't have info on my appointment so we had to wait out in the hall for them to clear a room so they could do my biopsy.
I'm 36 years old. Over time I have come to expect a certain amount of incompetence. I just don't like it when it becomes routine. I don't mean to rant. I understand they have a lot of veterans to work with. I'd just like to be one of them.
If you or someone you know is a veteran who is having issues with PTSD, please tell them to call 1-800-273-TALK. This is a National Crisis Hotline. They might have time to talk if they aren't too busy. They may even be able to schedule you for an appointment with your local VA mental health clinic. If they can fit it into their schedule.
As we have mentioned many times before, you can't get something for nothing. President Obama came under heavy fire from both sides of the political aisle when General McChrystal requested more troops for Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanaistan. President Obama, who had already sent an additional 34,000 troops to the area, gave the order for 30,000 more. Now we have to fund that request.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama plans to ask Congress for $33 billion in emergency war funding for a major U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan this year, defense officials said on Wednesday.
The money, mainly for the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and other war costs in the current 2010 fiscal year, would come on top of Obama's expected request to increase the Pentagon's overall budget in fiscal 2011 to a record $708 billion, the officials said on condition of anonymity.
Fiscal 2010 Defense Department funding, including war costs in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military construction, already comes to $660 billion.
I look forward to seeing the political dodgeball that comes with this request. Those congressmen and senators who are usually the most hawkish on the need for more troops are usually the opposite when it comes time to open the checkbook. And those who opposed the buildup to begin with will most likely use this as another reason why. In the balance hangs our troops who have been given their orders and are just waiting for the means to implement them.
I know we've heard it all before. Commanders on the ground are always optimistic when gains are made. They have to be. With what they and their soldiers deal with daily, pessimism in the face of gain would be demoralizing. We've heard many times before that the tide was turning against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or that Al-Qaeda was on the run. Al-Qaeda has been beaten more times than the Dallas Cowboys. So it is with caution that I read General McChrystal's view today. I can only hope that he is right.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal believes the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan has already blunted the Taliban's momentum and the tide is turning against the Taliban.
In an exclusive interview with ABC's "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said he believes he is making good on his promise of a "quantum shift" on the battlefield.
Now, just to clarify, General McChrystal is talking about this surge here, with the follow on troops here. Within a month of becoming the new Commander-in-Chief, President Obama made good on his campaign promise to shift the focus to Afghanistan. At the time we had 38,000 US troops on the ground. He immediately sent 21,000 more in March and then another 13,000 follow on troops beyond that number. This almost doubled the forces we had available there. These are the forces that General McChrystal is talking about now. The more recent announcement that another 30,000 troops are on their way is regarding troops that have not yet arrived.
"I believe we're doing that now. I believe that we have changed the way we operate in Afghanistan. We changed some of our structures and I believe that we are on the way to convincing the Afghan people that we are here to protect them," the general told Sawyer.
"We've been at this for about seven months now and I believe we've made progress. It's not a completed mission yet," he said.
McChrystal cited as evidence a meeting he recently held in a river valley in Helmand province, an area where the Taliban has been strong and was one of the first targets of the American surge.
"When I sit in an area that the Taliban controlled only seven months ago and now you meet with a shura of elders and they describe with considerable optimism the future, you sense the tide is turning," he said.
McChrystal had asked President Obama for a surge of troops and warned that the war would be lost if additional fighters weren't committed to the fight. The president agreed to send an additional 30,000 U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan and the infusion of troops is underway. The bulk of the forces won't arrive in Afghanistan until the end of this summer. When the surge is complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be close to 98,000.
Again, I don't want to get my hopes up. We've heard it all before. But at the same time, we have been saying for a long time that the fight in Afghanistan could be won if we had the forces to commit. According to the top General there, the tide is turning.
American airports have been rich targets for terrorists since the 1970's. It is not a problem that is new to President Obama. Both Bushes, Reagan, and Carter all faced the same problems. In fact, if you look at the trends, the 1980's were the worst time to travel by plane. The American people did not make this decision. This decision was made by numerous different foreign militant groups for a variety of reasons. But the fact is that our airports have over the last 40 years become the first line of defense against those who wish to do us harm. Our military has been tasked with the job of offense. We have been placed in the position of needing a response. And that is exactly what our current airport security guidelines are - a response to events that have happened.
Anytime a security approach is being designed one has to consider the threat. Whether we are looking at a bank, office building, college campus, preschool, or airport, the threat is the main thing that needs to be considered. Everything else is considered after that. There is no need to buy highly sophisticated cameras, facial recognition software, body imaging systems, and bomb sniffing dogs to protect the local Kinko's building. Unnecessary security at many office buildings will drive away customers. But there is a huge difference here. Their places of work have never been used as bombs to attack other buildings. The threat to airline safety goes back forty years and is very well documented. So when I make suggestions about how we could do the job better, it is with that threat in mind.
After the events of 9/11, the Aviation Transportation Security Act created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). At the same time this was created, the federal government initiated Operation Noble Eagle. Remember all those Army guys in uniform standing around in the airports with M16's? America began re-thinking the importance of airline safety, with a much stronger emphasis placed on the threat of terrorism. But unlike similar situations in the past, this time was primarily much more form and much less function. I have heard it said many times before (and it is true) that most of what goes on in the airport security process is theater. It's just to make passengers feel better. For instance, those Army guys aren't standing around in uniform anymore.
When the US government saw the need to create the FBI, they wanted only the very best. It took an exceptional candidate with a higher education than what was the norm at the time and a law enforcement background. The FBI "G-Men" were the highest echelon of our nation's law enforcement and we made sure to show that. Likewise when the CIA was created, the American government understood the importance of foreign intelligence operations. We recruited the very best and gave them a training budget that fit their needs. Over the course of our nation's history we have responded to changing security threats with overwhelming prowess. Take a look at the evolution of the Navy's Special Warfare Development Group, the US Army Rangers, or the National Reconnaisance Organization. These groups are all indicative of what our country can do when the need arises.
Transportation Security Officers make between $24,432 and $36,648 per year depending on position and location. At the high end that's $19 per hour. By comparison, a police officer in Hoover, Alabama makes $42,203 per year. Has anyone ever heard of a major terrorist problem in Hoover, Alabama? And the job requirements for the job in Hoover are much more difficult as well. Yes, it is actually much more difficult to get a job working as a cop in Hoover, Alabama, than to get on with TSA. Because of this we see the type of recruits we can expect to hire. Generally, low wage jobs like those at TSA draw in three main types of recruits. One, people who want a career in law enforcement. These are the young kids who are working for a short time until they can get on at a place like Hoover, Alabama. Two, people who cannot get hired on as local law enforcement. Maybe they're overweight, under-educated, or just couldn't make it through the interview and screening process required by most law enforcement agencies. Three, people who just need a job. They just need something for the time being to make the bills and put food on the table and the airport was hiring. We cannot hire career-minded, long term, dedicated individuals. Please note, I am not downplaying the good people who work for TSA. They do a thankless job for low pay with minimal training. But if we want better, we have to pay more and demand a completely different type of applicant. This brings me to my main point.
We need to completely change the way we think of TSA if we expect them to be successful.
We need a complete overhaul. We need to start thinking of TSA as our first line of defense, because that is who they are. Forty hours of training and $12-$19 per hour just isn't going to cut it. The argument can be made (successfully) that they need the same training, pay, and resources given to federal law enforcement. We need to take a page from Operation Noble Eagle and leverage the capabilities of our military. And I don't mean the theater show of a bunch of bored grunts hanging around. Imagine if we had an Army trained linguist scanning about the airport when a couple of guys speaking Arabic/Farsi/Pashto began talking about a high level operative in Al-Qaeda. Imagine if we had a liaison between the local Federal Security Director and the plain clothes investigators of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group. In other words, imagine if we started giving TSA the resources it needs to get the job done right.
Require applicants to have a military background. This is not negotiable. The military teaches discipline and attention to detail higher than any other profession. Pay them what they're worth. If our government has the money to do this then they have the money to fund a more professional TSA. Realize that we are trying to hire the same level of people that other federal law enforcement agencies and defense contractors are reaching for as well. Look for applicants that already have a background in law enforcement, not the guy that just got laid off from Pinkerton or Wackenhut. Then give them the training they need to get the job done right. Provide them with training at FLETC, followed up by specialized training in one of several fields. This could include interview techniques. If they are going to ask you questions about your baggage and your travel plans, they should at least be trained to see if you're lying.
All of this is just a beginning. This is just to get us up to the point where we should already be. Where we should have been long ago. This is a starting point. The funding, leadership, and effort required by our government will show the level of importance we give to the first line of defense. If we continue at the status quo, we can expect the same results we have seen over the last forty years. Please follow up in the comments section with your own suggestions.
One of the forgotten aspects of the war in Iraq (at least by most Americans) is the displacement of Iranian refugees inside Iraq. These people come from several different backgrounds and for different regions. And many times they are not friendly to the current Iraqi government. One such group is being transferred to a Baghdad hotel:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than 3,000 Iranian dissidents are set to be moved Tuesday from their refugee camp in northeastern Iraq to a hotel in Baghdad, the Iraqi government said Monday.
However, a spokesman for Camp Ashraf in Diyala province -- home to members of the People's Mujahadeen Organization of Iran -- called any claim by the government of an agreement with residents "unfounded and untrue."
"Any attempt to forcibly displace Ashraf residents will undoubtedly lead to a massacre and humanitarian catastrophe," Shahriar Kia said in an e-mail Sunday.
About 3,500 people live at Camp Ashraf, most of them members of the Iranian group who have lived there for 25 years since fleeing Iran.
This presents a difficult security challenge for the Iraqi government and the US military. This group was allied with Saddam during their war against Iran in the 1980's. So they are an anti-Iran group, but they are also very pro-Saddam. While almost all of the current Iraqi government is extremely friendly to Iran.
Iran, Iraq, Canada and the United States consider the group -- which opposes the government in Tehran -- a terrorist organization. The European Union removed the group from its terrorist list in January because the group "no longer advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran," according to human-rights group Amnesty International.
Iran wants to see the camp shut down, and the Iraqi government has said it would close the facility after it got control of the camp from the United States this year.
It seems that the American public has seeen a 180 degree shift over the last year. In December of last year, almost anyone I knew could tell me the casualty numbers and the latest goings on in Iraq. Afghanistan was "that other war." We had been there for seven years and even the most basic of strategies was not yet developed. Now I am seeing the polar opposite. During his campaign, President Obama promised to switch the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. He also promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. This quote is from July of 2008:
As the Iraq war winds down, Obama said, he wants to see troops redirected to Afghanistan. He said the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda was a war "we have to win" and repeated his call for two more combat brigades in Afghanistan to counteract "deteriorating" conditions.
And now we are seeing this plan put into action. This is Obama's second surge since last February when he ordered the deployment of 21,000 troops. When President Obama first took office, we had approximately 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan. His most current announcement will bring the total to 100,000 boots on the ground. So now to turn the attention back to "the other war." The one in Iraq.
The U.S. military is preparing for its withdrawal from Iraq, and some equipment is already on the move.
The delay in Iraq's national elections, which had been scheduled for January until a political dispute over the election law erupted last month, has posed some uncertainty over just when U.S. troops will begin to leave. The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, said recently that the American military is flexible, and that the drawdown of American forces could start as late as May.
With characteristic understatement, Odierno acknowledged that he's facing a problem that is bigger than just putting troops on a plane and leaving Iraq. "Because I will admit that we have six years worth of stuff that we've gathered here as the U.S. military," he says.
"Imagine if you never went through your garage or attic for seven years," says Col. Gust Pagonis, the Army officer in charge of logistics. "Well, that's kind of where we are in Iraq."
In all, military logistics teams will have to move an estimated 1.5 million pieces of gear from some 300 bases around the country.
Some of the equipment will go to the Iraqi military, but that is a process that involves the Pentagon and the State Department "making sure that what the Iraqis want is something that we're able to give them," Pagonis says.
This is definitely a reversal that I have been waiting to see. Many questions are still left unanswered. But already having doubled the force on the ground since taking office, and promising to send another large contingent, President Obama seems to be keeping with exactly what he said he would do.
It was quite a shock for me to read the news this morning. I live in Utah, in the third congressional district. Jason Chaffetz is my congressman. Utah is the reddest of the red states with an overwhelming republican base here, and Chaffetz is our newly elected, freshman congressman who replaced Chris Cannon. Considering his constituency, he generally promotes the far right base point of view. Also, considering the nature of being a new congressman, this is quite the political limb to be walking out on:
Saying it's time for Republicans to do more than "take pot shots at ACORN," freshman Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz will call on President Barack Obama on Monday to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan.
"So much of this is easy, black and white, but Afghanistan is very different and very difficult," he said.
Earlier this year, Chaffetz traveled to the region and said that, since then, he's "become more engrossed in my conviction it is time to bring our troops home."
"I am opposed to nation building, and I quite frankly don't see or understand what victory looks like," he said. "I believe, as most people do, that our military can do everything we want them to do. ... But we're asking them to fight a war that is not very well-defined. And we are asking them to do so with one hand tied behind their back."
So first we had Fred Thompson saying that the Afghan war is lost, and now we have Rep. Chaffetz calling for a withdrawal. Pass the popcorn, this should be fun to watch.
Kaziah Hancock is a Utah artist who paints portraits of fallen American heroes. She was driving home in early 2003 and heard the story on the radio of a fallen soldier from Utah. It was at that point she decided she would do a portrait of every fallen soldier. Of course, at the time we had a total of about eighty casualties. At the time it was still supposed to be a very short war.
"At the time, we had only been in Iraq for a short while, and we had lost 80 people," she said. "We were still expecting a short war."
Hancock called a friend who owns an art gallery that regularly features her work and who had several "connections."
"I told her I wanted to do a portrait for the families of the soldiers killed, and my friend said, 'Those from Utah?' I thought for about 15 seconds," she recalled. "And I said, 'No.' Is the one from Texas any less important to me? Or the one from New York? I told her I wanted to do them all. I wanted to paint the portraits for free, and ship ... all of them."
"After (painting) 33 of them, I got the idea to form a non-profit (organization) and people could express their patriotism, donate to this cause, and even get a tax deduction. It's mostly the average person who has contributed to the memory of our service people."
The organization she founded is called Project Compassion, Hancock said.
As Richard has noted, President Obama is expected to announce this next week his decision on Afghanistan. General Petraeus has cautioned that this decision should be well thought out and that President Obama was right to take some time. IN 2006, President Bush took four months to make a decision on the surge strategy in Iraq. With that in mind, I wanted to take a look at some of the possible strategies that have been discussed. The first assumes that we have the full compliment of 40,000 troops to work with:
WASHINGTON - Should President Obama decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 troops to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces.
The rest could be deployed flexibly across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.
As pointed out, this is the most ambitious plan. This includes a comprehensive mission of CT with border control and a training component as well.
If Mr. Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand Province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops and would remain largely as they are today.
Such trade-offs are part of the discussions under way in the West Wing and at the Pentagon as Mr. Obama and his top advisers debate escalating the eight-year-old war. And they drive home the basic point that while the numbers will dominate the headlines, what is really at stake is how to fight the war.
One thing that has remained unmentioned is the effect any of these strategies would have on the reliance on defense contractors. I have to wonder if more are being factored in or if the extra troops would allow the higher command to end some of those contracts. In either case, here is a small primer on the three main strategies being offered:
If the president approves the full 40,000 troops:
With 40,000 troops, the military priority would be to deploy as many as 10,000 to Kandahar, the desert province abutting Pakistan; its big city, also called Kandahar, is the second largest in Afghanistan. Currently there are about 3,200 United States troops and 1,600 Canadian soldiers in the area. The Taliban control much of Kandahar Province and are contesting control of the city.
An additional 5,000 American troops would probably be sent to the contested Helmand Province, home to the poppy crop that is a major source of income for the Taliban who traffic in opium.
Some 4,000 Marines are now in the area, but they have been unable to secure large parts of the province, including guerrilla strongholds in southern and central Helmand.
Yet another 5,000 would probably be sent to the eastern area that some military planners refer to as "P2K," for the Afghan provinces of Paktika, Paktia and Khost.
Perhaps as many as 10,000 troops would be deployed as trainers with the Afghan security forces, with NATO pledging to send thousands more.
Of course, the president could also decide to send close to 40,000 troops, reduce the number of trainers,or send different sets of troops in waves for different missions. For instance, the 10,000 to Kandahar could be deployed immediately, while the 10,000 for training missions could be the last to go. If the president decides to send 20,000 - 35,000 troops:
The difference between 30,000 and 40,000, military analysts say, is that there might be 5,000 trainers rather than 10,000, and fewer troops to spread flexibly across the country over all, although there would still be a strong concentration in the south.
Military officials say that three-quarters of any additional troops sent, no matter the number, will be working side by side with Afghan security forces in a "partnering" or apprentice arrangement. They will be separate from American trainers, whose job is to put raw recruits through a basic military training regime.
Under the partnering arrangement, Afghan troops will share the same bases as the Americans, a defense official said, and although there will be separate sleeping quarters and dining facilities, "they're going to live together, work together, plan together and operate together."
Administration officials estimate the cost of sending 30,000 more troops at $25 billion to $30 billion a year and the cost of sending 20,000 troops at $21 billion a year.
Finally, the smallest number of troops that has been discussed is 10 - 15,000 troops
Under this approach, advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the United States would accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces and focus on eliminating the Qaeda leadership in Pakistan through drone strikes.
Mr. Obama is likely to announce his new Afghanistan strategy in the first week of December, administration officials say.
Despite the attention to the troop number, Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that it would be about as helpful to understanding the president's war strategy as counting the number of parts in a Ferrari to determine how it would handle the road.
I am expecting President Obama's announcement to be some hybrid on these three basic strategies. AT the same time, however many troops are sent, I hope President Obama outlines how they will be used, for how long, and what that will accomplish in the long run. For a good primer on Afghanistan 101, check out this pdf file.
FORT BELVOIR, Va. - A Soldier successfully shoulder-fired a "smart" High Explosive Airburst, or HEAB round for the first time Aug. 11 from the XM-25 weapon system at Aberdeen Test Center, Md.
The Army plans on purchasing more than 12,500 XM-25 systems starting in 2012, which will be enough to put one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team, according to officials at Program Executive Office-Soldier.
"What makes this weapon system truly revolutionary is the ability to target the enemy, pass on this information to the sensors and microchips of its 25mm HEAB round, and have that round detonate over the target," explained Maj. Shawn Murray, a Soldier Weapons assistant product manager in PEO Soldier, the organization responsible for developing the XM-25.
"When the HEAB round explodes, the target is peppered with fragmentation," Murray said. "Our studies indicate that the XM-25 with HEAB is 300 percent more effective at incapacitating the enemy than current weapons at the squad level."
When the plan for the Sons of Iraq was revealed I was highly critical. My main concern at the time was that we would have to continue to pay these groups indefinitely. At the same time, there were no real assurances that the intelligence we were given was real or that we could trust the groups we were working with. As Alex Horton put it, we had "enemies with benefits." Now it seems that the Afghan government and the US military are looking to use the same model in Afghanistan:
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - The Afghan government and the U.S. military have begun a fledgling drive to lure Taliban foot soldiers away from the battlefield by offering them job opportunities and protection, diplomats and military personnel familiar with the initiative say.
Officials hope the plan, which is loosely modeled on the "Sons of Iraq" program that lured Sunni Muslims away from the Iraqi insurgency, could help pave the way for an eventual Western exit from Afghanistan.
Envisioned as a potential centerpiece of the new Karzai administration, the re-integration initiative is conceived as a bottom-up, grass-roots effort, similar to the Iraqi program, which was widely credited with reducing the level of violence there.
Of course, my immediate concern is what happens when the job runs out, they get fired, or the protection leaves? Karzai has already stated that he wants US troops out and Afghan forces providing security in five years. Will this reconciliation last at that point? And in the meantime, can we trust any information that these guys give us? Can we use them with any confidence in any security operations where American lives will be put at risk? Or do we just have new enemies with benefits?
I would expect that those who supported the Awakening movements in Iraq will come out in support of this policy as well. But as General Petraeus has said, Iraq is not Afghanistan. Also this program is planned as an Afghan-led operation from the beginning with the US, Britain, and NATO forces providing support.
In Iraq, the U.S.-funded Sons of Iraq program got as many as 100,000 Sunni insurgents to stop fighting the U.S., or even take up arms against the group Al Qaeda in Iraq, by forming paramilitary groups. Efforts are underway to move them into state security forces or provide other jobs. U.S. military officers deployed in Afghanistan's south, the Taliban heartland, say they are being encouraged to test similar ideas in the field.
As always, the success of this operation will be dependent on several other factors. And those in the command positions are already taking this into account. First and foremost, Afghan forces must understand that we are not providing an open-ended committment. The US forces will eventually need to leave, and they need to understand that now if progress is to be made.
British Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb, who arrived in Afghanistan at the end of August to help develop the plan, said a crucial element would be acknowledging that many insurgents believe that the West plans an open-ended occupation of Afghanistan.
"We have an opportunity to reset the conditions," Lamb, former deputy commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, said in an interview at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force headquarters. The vast majority of Taliban foot soldiers, he said, are "misguided -- they have fought well for a bad cause."
Indeed, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins recently stated that 80-90% of the detainees at Bagram are not Taliban diehards and would probably work with US forces if given the right conditions. Considering that I do not want an open-ended committment in Afghanistan and I do not believe that permanent bases there are in either countries' best interest, I am hoping this operation is successful. But with many dependancies and many questions unanswered, I will be very cautious before proclaiming any kind of success. A successful mission is like a safe landing. One you can walk away from.
As President Obama has been weighing his various options on Afghanistan, many on the right wing have accused him of dithering, or not acting fast enough. Many are concerned that President Obama is taking too much time weighing, planning, and deciding, and not enough time acting. The common right-wing meme is that while President Obama waits, soldiers are dying. But the commanders in the field are not the ones saying this. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I have already written about Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired Lt. General who commanded US foreces in Afghanistan in 2006-2007. He is now the US envoy in Afghanistan and he has recommended against adding more troops. Now General Petraeus is also cautioning that this decision should not be rushed:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2009 - The time President Barack Obama is taking to nail down the strategy in Afghanistan is time well spent, the commander of U.S. Central Command said today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus spoke at the Navy Memorial here as part of the American Veterans Center Annual Conference. He based his words not only on his current experiences, he said, but also on his experiences as the commander in Iraq.
In Iraq, getting the right strategy was just as important as the surge in personnel, the general said. "The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops," Petraeus said. "Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to ... implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have."
As attention shifts to Afghanistan, Petraeus said, people must remember that Afghanistan is not Iraq.
At the same time, General Petraeus recognized the various difficulties and unique issues faced in Afghanistan, some of the mistakes of the past, and the need to take all of these situations into account.
All this goes into the president's decision on the strategy in Afghanistan and the number of forces needed to institute it, Petraeus said, and he added that the decision-making process is good and healthy for the leaders and the country.
When the Iraq and Afghan strategies were first formulated in this administration in March, he said, the process was rushed. The current process has allowed Obama to engage in forming the process in a way he did not before, the general said.
"There have been very good debates, very good discussion," he said. "This is the kind of intellectual discourse you want. It does sharpen your thinking. It does expose differences of opinion. It helps you come to grips with the assumptions."
The president has committed an enormous amount of time to the process, and it is an appropriate use of his time, Petraeus said. "This decision will be forthcoming pretty soon, perhaps when he comes back from the Asia trip, and then we will all press forward," he said. "And I think we will do so with enormous benefit from having had these discussions."
As President Obama weighs the decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan, Ambassador Eikenberry the US envoy currently in Afghanistan opposes such an increase. Eikenberry cites rampant corruption as the main reason for his decision.
The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said.
At the same time, the president must also make sure the government of Afghanistan does not expect an open-ended committment. The US is willing to stay as long as it takes, but not any longer. There have been numerous suggestions from the right-wing that any withdrawal from Afghanistan is considered a defeat, even if that withdrawal is 15 years from now. This led to a statement released from the White House:
"The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," the statement said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time."
In other words, we're not willing to stay forever and we want some kind of return on our investment. If we continue to stay without seeing improvements in the Afghan government, that is not acceptable. But there is another piece of news that is also noteworthy. Most of those who are following events in Afghanistan are familiar with General McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops. But this was just one of several suggestions given.
On the eve of his nine-day trip to Asia, Obama was given a series of options laid out by military planners with differing numbers of new U.S. deployments, ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops. None of the scenarios calls for scaling back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan or delaying the dispatch of additional troops.
Ambassador Eikenberry is a retired Lt. General who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2006-2007. He retired from the military as a senior general in NATO this past April and was sworn in as ambassador to Afghanistan the next day. This highlights the difficulties in strategy for that region. The answer to any problem is not always to throw more troops in. If that were the case, why stop at 40,000? Various pieces of the puzzle must be put in place before any new troops would be beneficial to the wider effort.
I just wanted to take a moment and thank those who are now following VetVoice on Facebook. As of today, we now have 100 followers! Please take note of the nice little Facebook widget that Richard has posted on the side of the page. Hopefully, this first 100 followers is just the beginning.
Much has been made of the decision to close the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay. Proponents of the plan point to its use as a recruiting tool by AQ and other militant groups around the world. On the other side, many state that closing the prison is just an unneeded expense that will not resolve anything. In the middle of the two arguments, however, one point is often overlooked. That is the question of whether or not the US military can do it. Is it actually a feasible solution, and are there plans in place to carry it out? That question has now been answered:
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The military can comply with a White House order to empty the detention center and clear all 221 war-on-terror captives off this remote base "with 10 days notice,'' the prison camps commander said Tuesday.
Navy Rear Adm. Tom Copeman told The Miami Herald and Fox News in an interview that his 2,100-member team of guards and other support staff can meet President Barack Obama's Jan. 22 closure deadline right through the eighth anniversary of the establishment of the controversial prison camps.
"If they say on Jan. 12, 'Move them out,' we can meet the deadline,'' he said, "given the proper amount of logistical support.''
There are not a lot of detainees left. The facility which once held over 500 prisoners, now only has 221 left. Of those, 17 have been ordered as set free by a federal judge.
There has been a contentious debate as of late regarding the need to send more troops to Operation Enduring Freedom. On the one hand, those who support a counter-terrorism mission argue that more troops are not needed if we can define a straight CT mission there. On the other hand, those who support a population-centric COIN approach are saying we will need numerous more troops over a much longer period of time. It all depends on the strategy. Simply vanquishing various terror and militia groups does not require super-heavy manpower. However, if we want to build roads, bridges, schools, cement factories, electrical substations, government-run hospitals, and water treatment plants, that will take a lot longer and a lot more people. But for now, there is already a start on the increase of troops:
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.
The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.
Regardless of which strategy (CT/COIN) is eventually followed, I see this as a positive development. Groups like engineers and intelligence personnel are force-multipliers that ground forces can leverage in combat operations.
For those familiar with the Truman National Security Project, or for those who have participated in Operation Free, it is common knowledge that our military is analyzing the links between climate change and national security. Recently, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway commissioned an energy audit in Afghanistan in an effort to determine how US Marines could be more energy efficient. DARPA, the US defense research agency, has been developing solar powered systems for the military, to reduce the need for a constant supply line of fuel and batteries. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) also runs a Natural Security blog.
The Central Intelligence Agency announced plans to launch a center on climate change to examine the potential security risks of environmental issues.
The CIA said it was working on its new Center on Climate Change and National Security to examine the national security impact of environmental issues such as population shifts, rising sea levels and increased competition for natural resources.
CIA Director Leon Panetta described the center as an effective support tool for U.S. lawmakers examining international agreements on the environment.
"Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security," said the director. "The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence."
We've already seen the problems that population shifts and increased competition for food and water have caused in Somalia and the Niger Delta. It's good to see the CIA is staying ahead of the curve here. The next thing you know, soldiers will be trying to replace JP-8 with a homemade biodiesel. Wait, they're already doing that.
As I read the news from around the world, especially RGWOT hot spots, I notice a wonderful trend. More and more key AQ leaders are getting the opportunity to claim their 72 virgins. While this is a wonderful opportunity for them, I also have to commend the members of the US armed forces for helping them along their much-anticipated and well deserved journey. Take for example, the story of Al Qaeda operative Saleh ali Saleh Nabhan:
Intelligence sources have confirmed to the Somali government that Saleh ali Saleh Nabhan was killed, Information Minister Dahir Mohamud Gelle said Tuesday.
U.S. special operations forces used a helicopter to fire on a car Monday in southern Somalia, killing several people, including one they believed was Nabhan, U.S. officials told CNN earlier.
Nabhan, 30, was born in Kenya and had been tied to attacks that included the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, according to the sources.
President Obama signed off on Monday's operation, a senior U.S. official said. The United States had been monitoring the situation for days and had intelligence that Nabhan was in the area, the U.S. officials said.
Nabhan is believed to be an associate of al Qaeda member Harun Fazul, who was indicted in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies.
But this is not all. Recently several AQ operatives have been making their final journey with Mr. Nabhan. Take a look at these notes from Democracy Arsenel:
* al-Qaida is under heavy pressure in its strongholds in Pakistan's remote tribal areas and is finding it difficult to attract recruits or carry out spectacular operations in western countries
* "Core" al-Qaida is now reduced to a senior leadership of six to eight men, including Bin Laden and his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, according to most informed estimates. Several other Egyptians, a Libyan and a Mauritanian occupy the other top positions. In all, there are perhaps 200 operatives who count.
* Lethal strikes by CIA drones - including two this week alone - have combined with the monitoring and disruption of electronic communications, suspicion and low morale to take their toll on al-Qaida's Pakistani "core"
* European Muslim volunteers faced a chaotic reception, a low level of training, poor conditions and eventual disillusionment after arriving in Waziristan last year.
* The most significant recent development is evidence that al-Qaida's alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is fraying
* The failure to carry out spectacular mass attacks in the west since the 2005 London bombings has weakened the group's "brand appeal" and power to recruit.
These are all good indicators. AQ continues to weaken, loses ground, and suffers in recruitment.
This past week, 150 veterans from all over America gathered in Washington DC for the launch of Operation FREE. I was pleased to be able to attend. We started off with a dinner at the Doubletree Hotel in Crystal City and guest speeches to open the event and explain what we would be doing the next day. We were honored to hear from Jon Powers and various fellows from the Truman National Security Project. It was a stunning scene to witness 150 veterans from all over America come together for a common cause. Numerous veterans from VoteVets.org and Veterans Green Jobs were represented. If you have not taken the time to check these groups, I highly recommend that you do. VoteVets.org has been a strong force in pushing veterans legislation and they were a driving force behind the new GI Bill. Veterans Green Jobs has been working with homeless veterans in a tree planting operation and recently received a contract to weatherize buildings in southern Colorado which will employ numerous out of work vets.
The second day of the event kicked off early at 6:15 AM. This was troublesome to those of us who had stayed at the Skydome lounge late the previous night. We then proceeded to George Washington University to hear from guest speakers and receive a little communications training. We were honored to hear from Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn (Ret) and learn about effective communication from some of the best trainers in the industry.
After leaving George Washington University, we then proceeded to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building of the White House. This was my first time ever inside the White House. We had a briefing from a number of honored speakers including Carol Browner and Senator John Warner. Senator Warner's speech was amazing, driven, and passionate. He spoke of returning home from World War II and from Korea. He spoke of the changing public perception of the military over the last 50 years. And he spoke of the close ties between climate change and national security. I have posted the full briefing here for anyone who wishes to see it. The video is an hour long, so most will not wish to sit through it in its entirety. I would recommend at least watching Senator Warner's speech. It starts at 21:07.
After leaving the EEOB, we proceeded to Hart Senate building to meet with a number of different senators and discuss the upcoming climate change legislation. I accompanied a group from Veterans Green Jobs as we met with Senator Mark Udall in his office. It is always a pleasure to meet with senators and representatives. Senator Udall was humorous, extremely supportive, and right on point. As I was meeting with him, over a hundred other veterans were meeting with other senators, legislative aids, and policy advisers. Operation FREE has begun.
On September 11, 2001 I was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. I was working as an investigator for the US Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID) and we were all called into the conference room. Initially we thought it was an accident. Then the planes kept coming, then the Pentagon was hit. Fort Hood locked down. We had concertina wire at each unit parking lot. The security at III Corps immediately ramped up. Our SAC immediately began suspending any open investigations and concentrating our efforts on local CT operations. And we began the process of deploying specific elements of CID to Afghanistan. The events of 9/11 forever changed my life and my view of the world. Those same events have since shaped our national policy and our foreign relations.
For those who don't rememeber, just six short years ago, Chalabi was the darling of the right-wing. It was his lobbying, with BKSH & Associates that provided a major portion of the information on which US intelligence viewed Iraq. This included Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and other intel that has since been proven as complete crap. He has numerous ties to PNAC, and has been under investigation from a number of American government agencies. And now, he is back in the Iraqi government:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's main Shiite parties Monday announced the formation of a new alliance that excludes the prime minister -- at least for now.
The coalition, named the Iraqi National Alliance, was formed to compete in the country's national elections in January. It includes top Shiite parties, but not Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party.
Senior political leaders who announced the alliance in a televised meeting said they still are holding talks with Dawa and other parties.
The coalition replaces the powerful Iranian-backed Shiite United Iraqi Alliance -- of which Dawa was a part -- that swept the country's 2005 polls but later disintegrated. The new coalition was being presented as a nonsectarian one that includes a broader representation.
"This Iraqi National Alliance is a coalition of political forces from all aspects of Iraqi society," Ahmed al-Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, which is part of this alliance, said on Monday. "It is not an Islamic alliance like the previous one. It includes liberal groups, it aims to be nonsectarian, it has many representatives of other communities of Iraq in it."
As another sign that OIF is continuing to wind down, the "coalition of the willing" is becoming the coalition of the one:
BAGHDAD - Commanders of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, as the American-led coalition is formally called, have a looming nomenclature problem.
Two days from now, there will no longer be any other nations with troops in Iraq - no "multi" in the Multi-National Force. As Iraqi forces have increasingly taken the lead, the United States is the last of the "coalition of the willing" that the Bush administration first brought together in 2003.
That is partly because the Iraqi Parliament left suddenly for summer recess without voting to extend an agreement for the British military to keep a residual training force of 100 soldiers in Iraq. As a result, those troops must withdraw to Kuwait by Friday, according to a British diplomat, who declined to be identified in keeping with his government's practice.
So, by definition, there is no longer a "Multi-National" force. Now that US troops have withdrawn from the cities, this is the beginning of the next phase. One Marine put it in terms any soldier could understand:
In response to a query, American military officials acknowledged the need for a name change, and said Multi-National Force-Iraq would officially become United States Force-Iraq as of Jan. 1, 2010, according to the deputy coalition spokesman, Lt. Col. Mike Stewart. "This is done to reflect the new bilateral relationship between U.S. forces and our Iraqi hosts," he said.
Even that relationship is being redefined, as the American military undergoes the complex process of withdrawing 130,000 soldiers over the next two years while shifting much of its attention to Afghanistan. As one Marine officer in Anbar Province said recently, "We're so out of here."
WASHINGTON - The US Army is to boost its ranks temporarily by up to 22,000 troops to ease the strain of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday.
"Much has changed over the last two years, causing us to reassess whether we are properly sized to support current operational needs," Gates said, adding that the army would swell to 569,000 soldiers, up from the current 547,000.
"The persistent pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last several years has steadily increased the number of troops not available for deployment in the army."
As commanders continue to push for more troops in Afghanistan (one of President Obama's campaign promises), this appears to me as a much needed development. We can certainly do more with 22,000 extra troops than if we spent more on certain other priorities. It is also refreshing to see someone finally addressing the continuing stop-loss issue.
Obama has ramped up the US effort in Afghanistan, dispatching 21,000 more troops to fight a mounting Taliban-led insurgency just as the United States draws down in Iraq as part of a bilateral agreement signed last year.
In addition to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the expansion also aimed to help the army cope with stop-loss, a controversial policy under which soldiers stay in service beyond their original enlistment dates.
"The decision to eliminate the routine use of stop-loss authority in the army also requires a larger personnel float for each deploying unit to compensate for those whose contract expires during the period of deployment," Gates said.
The new US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is set to deliver his assessment to the Pentagon next month and already has indicated that he will not shy away from proposing more US troops, regardless of political and economic considerations.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US military officer, said he had grown "increasingly concerned over the last year and a half about stress on the force and our ability to meet the demands out there. This temporary increase helps us address that concern."
I'm sure Colonel Joe, among others here, will keep us abreast of the effect this has on the IRR.
With all of the turmoil currently happening with the Iranian elections, North Korean sabre rattling, and the Somali government about to be overthrown by an insurgency, it was nice to read this little bit of good news.
WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - U.S. drones prowled the sky over Pakistan's South Waziristan on Wednesday, a day after one of the aircraft attacked a stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, killing about 70 militants.
The U.S. attack came as the Pakistani army is preparing an all-out assault on al Qaeda ally Mehsud, who has been accused of orchestrating a campaign of bombings in Pakistan, including the 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
The push into South Waziristan on the Afghan border looms as the army is finishing off an offensive in the Swat valley, northwest of Islamabad, launched after Taliban gains raised fears for nuclear-armed Pakistan's future.
For one, it's nice to see the Pakistani military stepping up. For two, it's nice to see that we are able to provide a means of air support into so far a region. But most of all, it's nice to see 70 AQ militants get their 72 virgins.
It's pretty much the opposite of the US response. When news of the disputed Iranian elections hit the US, there was an immediate outpouring of support for the opposition. Immediately American bloggers began working to enable proxies and use social media as much as possible to allow Iranian voices to be heard. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have been the only outlet for many oppressed Iranians standing up to what they feel is a sham regime. Western news agencies began explaining the basics of Iranian politics that most Americans do not know, and the various benefits and consequences that new leadership in Iran may bring.
President Jalal Talabani on Sunday congratulated Ahmadinejad on his re-election. There were congratulatory messages, too, from top Shi'ite leaders Abdel Aziz al-Hakim and Moqtada al-Sadr. Hakim is in Tehran, receiving treatment for cancer, and Sadr is believed to be training to become an ayatullah in the Iranian holy city of Qom.
For those unfamiliar with Iraqi politics, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim is the leader of the United Iraqi Alliance. The alliance comprises more than twenty different groups. However, it is dominated by two main Shia parties, former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari's Islamic Dawa Party (with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as the Secretary General), and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Leaders of the Dawa Party sought exile in Iran from the 1980's up until the U.S. invasion in 2003, so there is a strong bond between Iran and the current Iraqi government. He is also the leader of the Badr organization which makes up the predominance of the Iraqi police and military forces. Moqtada al-Sadr is a strong member of the Iraqi parliament whose political wing, the Sadrist Trend, is the second largest political party in Iraq.
Aside from the top political leadership, many other high level politicians and leaders in Iraq have a very comfortable relationship with the mullahs in Iran. They, along with many of Iraq's Shia population, spent the Saddam years living in exile in Iran. It was their rise to political power in Iran that has enabled them to take leadership roles in present day Iraq.
So, as we in America wear green in support of the brave Iranian opposition, or follow events as they unfold across #iranelection. As our pundits and politicians speak of hope for the Iranian people. Please be aware that most of Iraq is taking the opposite point of view.
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. authorities have brought the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to the United States, flying him into New York to face trial for bombing U.S. embassies, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
The department said Ahmed Ghailani arrived in the early morning hours Tuesday, to be held in U.S. law enforcement custody until his trial in federal court in lower Manhattan. Ghailani was expected to make his initial appearance in Manhattan federal court later Tuesday.
While this is an important first step, I would like to keep it in the context of what it is. This is only the first step in a very long sequence of events that need to happen. Also, many people claim that this is the first trial of an international terrorist on US soil. That is not true either.
There are currently 216 inmates in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody who have a history of/or nexus to international terrorism. Sixty seven of these individuals were extradited to the United States for prosecution, while 149 were not extradited. Seventy two of these individuals are U.S. citizens (45 of them born in the United States, 27 of them naturalized). The "Supermax" facility in Florence, Colo. (ADX Florence), which is BOP's most secure facility, houses 33 of these international terrorists. There has never been an escape from ADX Florence, and BOP has housed some of these international terrorists since the early 1990s. In addition to the ADX Florence, the BOP houses such individuals in the Communications Management Units at Terre Haute, Ind., and Marion, Ill., as well as in other facilities among different institutions around the country.
Among those convicted international terrorists currently serving sentences in BOP facilities are:
* Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
* Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
* Ahmed Ressam, the Millenium Bomber
* Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
* Richard Reid, convicted of attempting to ignite a shoe bomb while on a flight from Paris to Miami carrying 184 passengers and 14 crewmembers
* Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate the U.S. President as well as attack and destroy civilian airliners
* Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring with al-Qaeda to hijack and crash planes into prominent U.S. buildings as part of the 9/11 attacks
Domestic Terror Inmates
In addition to those inmates with an international terrorism history or nexus, there are approximately 139 individuals in BOP custody who have a history of/or nexus to domestic terrorism. These individuals include:
* Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber
* Terry Nichols, convicted accomplice of Timothy McVeigh in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing
So while I applaud the administration's efforts at closing Guantanamo, this is nothing more than what it is. The first out of nearly 200 inmates has been transferred. This just begins the process.
Which brings me to LTG (Ret) Sanchez. For those who are not familiar with General Sanchez, he was the commander of all coalition forces in Iraq from 2003-2004. I served my tour in Iraq under his command. General Sanchez is now calling for a "Truth Commission" to investigate US violations of Geneva Conventions and other abuses in Iraq.
The General described the failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to the abuses in Iraq, "and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission."
The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."
I interviewed General Sanchez after the event and asked him to elaborate on why he felt the US needed such a commission. "For the American people to really know what happened, " he replied, "...this was an institutional failure, a personal failure on the part of many...."
"If we do not find out what happened," continued the General, "then we are doomed to repeat it."
Not once instance of actionable intelligence? So much for the idea that torture has saved lives. I agree with the former General. I do believe that these actions must be investigated and those responsible for them brought to justice so that this never happens again. I do find it quite ironic, however, that it is this specific former General who is calling for the invesigation.
Documents obtained by The Washington Post and the ACLU show that the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib. Also a November 2004 report by Brig Gen Richard Formica found that many troops at the Abu Ghraib prison were only following orders based on a memo from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and that "[she] didn't find cruel and malicious criminals that are out there looking for detainees to abuse."
"Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards", ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in the union's statement.
Regardless of who authorized what, I am glad to see LTG (Ret) Sanchez take a stand against these parctices and promote the efforts to bring those responsible to justice. Even if such an investigation includes himself.
Most of us here at VetVoice, myself included, are veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And while we have all voiced concerns about the need for the invasion of Iraq, the distraction from the Real Global War On Terror in Afghanistan, or the "Stay the Course" mentality of the former administration, we all fought for the basic premise of that operation. Namely, Iraqi freedom. In 2005, although I was not pleased with who they elected, I was pleased that they had the freedom of election. In 2007, they began asking for a timetable and wanting to stand on their own. I fully supported that decision. And in 2008, just last year, we signed an agreement with them for that very reason. The Iraqi government asked for a 16 month withdrawal. The Bush administration asked to stay until 2015. They reached a compromise at 2011. President Obama campaigned on fulfilling their original 16 month request. That is why this news is so very troubling:
Washington -- The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.
Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."
We have bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and other areas throughout that region. There is no reason to leave troops in Iraq in direct opposition of the Iraqi government. What was the point of giving them their freedom if we are not willing to honor it? We have also signed agreements with the Iraqi government that their land and airspce will not be a staging point to attack their neighbors in the region. Are we going to go back on that promise too?
He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a U.S. commitment to fighting extremism in the Middle East.
This, however, is in direct contradiction to his next statements.
Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."
Casey said his comments were not meant to conflict with administration policies.
President Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, but the legal agreement that the two countries signed last year would have to be amended.
The United States has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war quickly and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight in Afghanistan. The United States is expected to have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year. That's about double the total at the end of 2008, but Obama's top military and civilian advisors have indicated the number is unlikely to grow much beyond that.
So which one is it? Are we going to do as our Commander-In-Chief has promised, and as we have promised the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people? Or are we going to go back on those promises? If we walk back on this agreement, how can we expect the Iraqi government, or any other nation, to trust us in future agreements?
I have to wonder how long it will be before the right-wing is screaming that those arrested in the NYC Synagogue Bomb Plot are too dangerous to hold in American prisons.
I had a wonderful opportunity this week to attend the DC Clean Energy event sponsored by VoteVets.org. As yet another example of VoteVets working within the system to promote the interests of veterans, this is why I joined VoteVets. As always, we hit the ground running, fill every moment of our time, and don't stop until it's time to get back on the plane. This time we were promoting the American Clean Energy Security act (ACES) HR 2454. This is an important issue for veterans as well as for active duty troops. As Patrick Bellon stated, "The same fuel that we are moving in convoys is paying for the IED's that are waiting for us."
Peter Grenato, Kevin Rae, Steve Maddox,Heather Brutz, Johnathan Hale, Representative Patrick Murphy, Brian McGough, Chris LeJeune, Sam Schultz, and Patrick Bellon
We met on Tuesday morning (May 19) with Jon Powers and representatives from the Truman National Security Project, the Sierra Club, and the Parntership Project. After breakfast and briefings from the various groups in attendance, we set out for capitol hill. Each veteran in attendance had meetings with various legislative aids, policy advisers, or other staffers from their home states. Several of these were members of the Energy and Commerce committee. We also staked out the E&C committee area and spoke with congressmen where possible. That afternoon we attended a press conference where Jon Soltz and others spoke on behalf of ACES.
The goal of the ACES bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. By doing so, we can help to pull the funds away from the same terrorists we're fighting. We can also prevent the further destabilization of several regions that are already at great military risk. The national security implications of this are clear, however I believe a quote from Senator Luger says it best:
Energy security is national security. Oil precipitates conflict, it ties the hands of those seeking peace, and it puts the lives of our soldiers at greater risk. I strongly agree with the stark conclusion of CNA's Military Advisory Board: anyone serious about American military and diplomatic strength must be serious about energy. - Richard G. Luger (R-IN), US Senator
This is old news now for those who follow the goings on in Afghanistan. The word came out last week that General McKiernan would no longer be in charge of Afghanistan. Upon first hearing the news, I thought it was rather strange for him to be stepping down at this point in time. President Obama just committed more troops to the region and has promised even more at the request of the commanders on the ground. Also, for the first time ever, the budget for Afghanistan is higher than the budget for Iraq. That shows an obvious shift in priorities. So, with all of this happening, it was an unexpected move for General McKiernan to step down. Well, from what I'm reading now, it sounds as though this was not a voluntary move on his part. SECDEF Gates chose to replace him for a number of reasons.
Public beheadings in Afghanistan are usually associated with the Taliban, but on Monday it was Defense Secretary Robert Gates metaphorically wielding the axe from the Pentagon platform. Gates announced that he had asked for and requested the resignation of his top commander in Afghanistan, Army General David McKiernan, after only 11 months in that theater. The 37-year veteran will be replaced by Army Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. Army Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Defense Secretary's own top military aide, is to serve in a newly created post as McChrystal's deputy.
The move was yet another dose of accountability from Gates, who has previously cashiered officers for failing to tend to hospitalized troops or to secure nuclear weapons. But Monday's action was more momentous: It marked the first time a civilian has fired a wartime commander since President Harry Truman ousted General Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for questioning Truman's Korean War strategy.
I don't want to speculate yet what the implications of this new change are. For those of us who have experienced it, we all know that a change of command involves a few headaches and takes a little time to assimilate to the new changes. Once that rough period is over, though, I will be interested to see what changes LTG McChrystal makes, especially in regards to COIN and CT strategy. But make no mistake, this is obviously a large move on the chess board.
The Obama Administration has made Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror over the past month, it had concluded that McKiernan's tenure there had involved too much wheel-spinning even as the Taliban extended its reach. There was not enough of the "new thinking" demanded by Gates. "It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes," Gates said, refusing to elaborate. He noted that Joints Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, who as chief of U.S. Central Command oversees the Afghan war, had endorsed the move. Officers have typically served about 24 months in the slot, meaning McKiernan had served less than half his expected tour.
I am a bit concerned however, that General McKiernan may have been shown the proverbial door, however, because he told the truth. We have all known that Afghanistan has needed more troops for the last seven years. It seems, from what I'm reading, that Gates was not pleased with McKiernan's requests for more resources.
"McKiernan did his best - he was just the wrong guy," says retired Army officer and military analyst Ralph Peters. "McChrystal will ask for more authority, not more troops." By the end of this year, the U.S. expects to have close to 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 21,000 ordered there by Obama. While that's just half the 130,000 troops the U.S. maintains in Iraq, Gates has been leery of sending further reinforcements.
McChrystal proved adept at using intelligence to multiply the impact of the troops at his disposal when he commanded U.S. Special Forces in Iraq as they hunted down and killed al-Qaeda leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
...
Gates has long demonstrated an impatience with war-time commanders who passively wait for the military hierarchy to give them what they need. He was stunned at the military's foot-dragging when he ordered additional armored vehicles and drone aircraft to the Afghan and Iraq wars.Even though McKiernan's dismissal had been in the works prior to Gates' trip to Afghanistan last week (Mullen had warned McKiernan two weeks ago that it was coming), Gates was incensed by some of what he witnessed during that visit. Several troops complained that they lacked basic gear after arriving in Afghanistan. "It is a considerable concern to me," he said last Thursday, brushing off a suggestion that the Taliban or the priority given to Iraq had been to blame for the Afghan shortfalls.
As I said earlier, I don't want to jump to conclusions or speculate what is going to happen just yet. I want to give it some time and let the adjustment of the change of command take affect. I will be interested in seeing what changes are made.
An article by the WashingtonPost today lays out the new defense budget proposal. It shows where the money is spent, and what programs will be cut. But the most noteworthy change with the new budget is the obvious shift in priorities. This can be seen in three key areas. First, and for the first time, the budget for Afghanistan is actully larger that the budget for Iraq. Just as President Obama had promised in his campaign, he is shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Second, a number of the high-end weapon systems (such as the F-22 and the Presidential Helicopter Program) are being cut to make room for more mine resistant vehicles and increased spending on SOF. And third, there is more funding for TBI and other veteran-related issues.
Afghanistan war funding surpasses the outlay for Iraq for the first time in next year's proposed Pentagon budget, demonstrating a shift in priorities that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seeks to execute in defense spending.
The $130 billion in war funds that are part of the fiscal 2010 budget request includes $65 billion for Afghanistan operations and $61 billion for Iraq. For 2009, $87 billion was requested for Iraq and $47 billion for Afghanistan.
The budget covers the deployment of 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year, raising the total to 68,000. More funds would be required if President Obama decides to meet the request of U.S. commanders for 10,000 more troops next year.
And this is not just concentrating on Afghanistan without the necessary emphasis on its most important regional neighbor. The defense budget also addresses some concerns regarding Pakistan.
The budget includes $700 million for training and equipment to improve Pakistan's counterinsurgency capability, a major increase in such assistance over the $400 million sought for this year.
Also, as previously mentioned, some of the big-ticket items are being scrapped to make room for more items that are needed in our current threat environments.
Major spending increases include $2 billion on intelligence and reconnaissance, $500 million to field and maintain helicopters, and funds to add 2,400 personnel to Special Operations Forces in 2010 as well as aircraft to support them. More will be spent on some modern weapons systems, with an increase in the purchase of littoral combat ships and the "fifth generation" F-35 fighter jets.
It would halt the program for the F-22 fighter jet after 187 are manufactured. Other major cuts include ending the $13 billion presidential helicopter program, which has more than doubled in cost; the $19 billion transformational satellite program; and the Air Force combat search-and-rescue helicopter program, as well as cutting $1.2 billion from missile defense.
The Army's Future Combat System would have its ground vehicle program terminated. The Army has been asked to incorporate into that system new mine-resistant vehicles developed for Iraq and Afghanistan.
And finally, increased spending on veterans health care:
Emphasizing the need to care for the all-volunteer force, the budget includes a 2.9 percent pay raise for military members and increased spending on research to find treatments for traumatic brain injury and mental health problems. Health care costs for military personnel have ballooned in recent years and will consume $47 billion of the 2010 budget.
All in all, after reviewing a number of cuts, increases, and changes, I have to say I am very pleased with this proposal. Veterans groups have been asking for some time for a shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. It looks like this is finally starting to happen. Also, many of the programs that are being cut have been requested for disposal by high-level commanders for the last several years. This new change in priorities has been a long time coming.
Now we're on the right track. The government of Pakistan, at least for the time being, has seen the folly in trying to make a peace deal by handing over swaths of land to the Taliban. They have now decided to scrap the peace deal, and begin the counter-offensive.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The Pakistani government plans to scrap a tenuous peace deal with Taliban militants and launch an even more aggressive operation against them in northwestern Pakistan, a Pakistani military official said Thursday.
The military plans to begin a major offensive Thursday evening in Swat, the site of a faltering peace deal between the Pakistani military and the Taliban.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani will announce the end of the peace deal and the military offensive Thursday night, the official said.
I have to say I admire the timing of that announcement. They plan to begin a major offensive and then tell them that the peace deal is off. And they aren't just playing around either, they are sending in the big toys.
Between 12,000 and 15,000 Pakistani troops already are in Swat, according to the official. The official tells CNN more troops will be deployed in the Swat, Dir and Buner districts to fight the militants.
Pakistani fighter jets and helicopters pounded Taliban positions in the country's Swat Valley Thursday as the military continued its offensive against Taliban militants, the government said.
The bombing runs hit Taliban training and communications centers in Gath Peochar. Other operations hit an area of Swat called Qambar, where a "notorious militant commander named Shah Duran operates," said Maj. Naser Khan with the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Public Relations agency in Swat.
I would like to think that this renewed confidence on the part of the Pakistani government is a reaction to the current legislation that proposes more funding for them, but I have no proof of that connection. Also, SECDEF Gates has said that US troops will not be sent into Pakistan at this time.
There is a new bill going through the Senate now aimed at tripling non-military aid to Pakistan. Personally I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Pakistan is very much a rogue nation with a terrible history of human rights abuses. They have previously ordered their military to fire on US troops. They have openly granted safe haven to Al-Qaeda and they possess WMD. For these reasons, I am wary about granting any kind of funding to Pakistan. I honestly have to wonder why we perceive them as an "ally". However, on the other hand, this could serve well as a larger "carrot and stick" approach. By granting such large funds to the Pakistani government we then get a larger say in their actions. It falls back to the Golden Rule, we supply the gold so we get to make the rules. Either way, I would like to open the idea up here for discussion, especially among those vets who have more experience and knowledge about Af-Pak than myself.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Pakistani forces continue to battle an advancing Taliban, the leading senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced legislation Monday tripling aid to the country.
The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, introduced by Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Dick Lugar, R-Indiana, authorizes $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan over the next five years to foster economic growth and development, and another $7.5 billion for the following five years.
The $1.5 billion per year would triple U.S. non-military aid levels, currently at $500 million per year. The legislation also would separate military from non-military aid, promising that economic aid "is no longer the poor cousin to military aid."
In a statement released Monday, the senators said they aim to build "a deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement with the people," rather than just the leaders of Pakistan, acknowledging past U.S. aid to the country had been tied to political events, "sending mixed messages and leading most Pakistanis to question both our intentions and our staying power."
...
In introducing the legislation on the Senate floor, Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, warned, "An alarming percentage of the Pakistani population now sees America as a greater threat than al Qaeda.
"Until we change that perception there is, frankly, very little chance of ending tolerance for terrorist groups or persuading any Pakistani government to devote the political capital necessary to deny such groups ... the sanctuary that they've been able to receive."
Lugar added, "If Pakistan is to break its debilitating cycle of instability, it will need to achieve progress on fighting corruption, delivering government services, and promoting broad-based economic growth."
In rolling out his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in March, President Obama called on Congress to pass such a bill, versions of which have been introduced in previous sessions of Congress.
"To someone who has never experienced danger, the idea is attractive rather than alarming...Before you lies that golden prize, victory, the fruit that quenches the thirst of ambition. Can that be so difficult?
No, and it will seem even less difficult than it is."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said publicly today what most of us already know. A military strike on Iran would do more harm than good.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday a military strike on Iran's nuclear program would not stop that country from pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon.
Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.
Of course, this also neglects the reports from our own intelligence services that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weaponry. Regardless of the intelligence, however, a military solution would not be the best option. Instead, SECDEF Gates suggests using diplomacy.
He said the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.
"Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons," Gates said. "They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now."
In other words, Secretary Gates is suggesting that talking to the Iranian leaders and pursuing a diplomatic response would be more productive than a military strike. I do not see this influencing the right-wing opinion of him, however. They already don't like him.
British troops ended six years of combat operations in Iraq on Thursday, beginning to withdraw from the southern city of Basra after a bloody and costly mission that was deeply unpopular at home.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised his military's accomplishments and sacrifices, speaking after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at Brown's Downing Street office in London.
"Today marks the closing chapter of the combat mission in Iraq," Brown said, adding that Britain's remaining 3,700 troops had begun to leave their base on the outskirts of Basra.
While we have definitely had our differences with the British troops, they have been a great asset to Basra and southern Iraq.
"Today Iraq is a success story. We owe much of that to the efforts of British troops. Our mission has not always been an easy one; many have said that we would fail," [Brown]told reporters.
Al-Maliki and other Iraqi ministers, including oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani, were in London to attend an investment conference with about 250 companies, including Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Rolls-Royce.
British politics and public support seem to mirror much of our own. I suspect that this will also be the beginning of a withdrawal period for other nations with smaller contingents. The British contribution of 3700 soldiers is the second largest next to the US.
The Iraq conflict was unpopular in Britain, sparking some of the largest public demonstrations in a generation. Britons nonetheless returned Blair's government to office in a 2005 election.
British opposition lawmakers have urged Brown to begin an inquiry into the Iraq invasion, chiefly to scrutinize mistakes in prewar intelligence and planning for post-invasion reconstruction.
"It should start right now," said Conservative Party leader David Cameron. "There are vital lessons to learn and we need to learn them rapidly."
Congratulations Great Britain, mission accomplished.
As anyone who follows this blog knows, many troops, veterans, and commanders have been pushing for a transition of resources over the last several years. I personally have been promoting the need to transition our military forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is finally beginning to happen:
BAGHDAD, March 8 -- The U.S. military announced Sunday that 12,000 American soldiers would withdraw from Iraq by September, marking the first step in the Obama administration's plan to pull U.S. combat forces out of the country by August 2010.
Under the administration's plan, major reductions in the more than 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be postponed until after elections scheduled for December to choose a new parliament, a vote that nearly everyone in the country sees as a potential watershed moment. A U.S.-Iraqi agreement negotiated last year requires all U.S. troops to depart by the end of 2011, a deadline that Iraqi officials reiterated Sunday. "The Iraqi government has no intention to accept the presence of any foreign troops or bases after 2011," said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman.
It is important to note that this was not a decision solely made by the US government, but is part of a compromise between the US and Iraq during the SOFA negotiations. The Iraqi government had originally requested a faster withdrawal. Although, a representative from the Iraqi government did state that they would not have signed the agreement with the US if a republican had been elected to the presidency, as they did not feel that the agreement would have been honored. Also, in accordance with the SOFA, all US troops will be removed from Iraqi cities and street patrols by the end of June, this year.
But long before then, the posture of the U.S. military will have changed dramatically. Under the U.S.-Iraqi agreement, American troops must leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, and Obama last month ordered that two combat brigades scheduled to replace forces in Iraq be deployed to Afghanistan instead. The departure of the brigades scheduled to leave Iraq by September would leave 12 still in the country. An F-16 squadron, along with some support units, also will depart, as will the remaining 4,000 British soldiers, who are based in southern Iraq.
Thus begins the transition of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. This also marks the withdrawal of the last of the British forces. This is a very valuable transition for America and an important step for Iraq.
I just emailed a letter to the Pentagon regarding the need to lift the ban on photos of caskets of our returning fallen heroes at Dover Air Force Base and other ports of entry. This is an issue I feel very strongly about, and I would like to share what I wrote here.
When I first arrived home from Iraq in May of 2004, there were several people at the airport that I had never met before. They were there to shake my hand and express their thanks and gratitude for my service in Iraq. They did this for every soldier who walked off the plane. One of them spoke to me saying that it was his goal to shake the hand of every returning soldier.
But not all of our soldiers were getting off that plane. Some of them would arrive later at night, and when they arrived no one would be there to greet them. No one would be there to honor the sacrifice they had made. No one would be able to express what it meant to them for that soldier to give what he had.
No one would be there, not because it was too late at night, or because they had other things to do. No one would be there because they simply weren't allowed. They weren't allowed to welcome these soldiers home, to thank them, to tell them how grateful they were.
These soldiers wouldn't run up and meet their smiling wife and hug their kids. They wouldn't get to shake their Dad's hand in appreciation having also served. They wouldn't even get to talk to their fellow brothers in arms.
They were barred from this area for one reason and one reason only. These soldiers weren't walking off the plane, they were being carried.
It's far past time to lift the ban on photos of caskets of our returning fallen heroes at Dover Air Force Base and other ports of entry. I stand with VoteVets.org, to urge you to advise President Obama to lift the ban.
I know this is a difficult subject for those of us who have served and who have lost friends and family. Please take the time to write a letter as well expressing the need and importance of overturning this policy. Many people have tried to persuade the top levels regarding this issue, but it means much more when it comes from another vet.
The results of the January 2009 Provincial elections in Iraq are officially in. For the most part, they are not surprising to anyone who regularly follows Iraqi politics. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) did better than many had expected and even tied with Maliki's State of Law List in some areas. The Iraqi Islamic Party did very well, winning Diyala and coming in second place in Baghdad and Anbar. Considering that the IIP refuses all diplomatic relations with the US and Israel, I have to wonder how much the recent events in Gaza influenced this election. Israel was crossing into Gaza at the same time the elections were being held.
Finally, one of the newer political parties in Iraq did much better than expected. Al-Hadbaa List won in Ninewa running on an anti-Kurdish ticket. They are one of three political groups formed over the last few years. From Musings On Iraq:
The al-Hadbaa National List was formed in 2007. It is made up of four parties, Al-Hadbaa National United Assembly, the Patriotic and National Forces Assembly, the Iraqi and Kurdistani Party for Freedom and Equality, and Al-Qasat Iraqi Assembly. [...]
The Patriotic Union and National Forces Assembly was founded by Isam Aead Sheat al-Jubouri. The Assembly is itself a coalition of the Democratic Reform and Justice Party, the Justice and Reform Iraqi Movement, the Arab Socialist Movement, the Nasserite Avant-Garde Socialist Party, and the Iraqi Arab Party.
The Iraqi and Kurdistani Party for Freedom and Equality was also founded in 2007 by Arshad Ahmed al-Zebari. They oppose Kurdish independence. Al-Qasat Iraqi Assembly was started in Mosul in 2005 by engineer Fares Abdul Azeez al-Sanjari. They want an end to the U.S. occupation, freeing of prisoners, and decentralized rule.
So, now that the SOFA agreement is complete, it will be interesting to see how these new elected officials will work with the US, and what changes may be proposed.
Should the US negotiate with Uzbekistan to reopen the Karshi-Khanabad airbase? I know Uzbekistan has a horrible human rights record, but that never deterred us from running the KKMC in Saudi. Also, what resources would be required to make Tajikistan a real alternate supply route? Is there any way we could re-establish Shabaz Air Base in Jacobobad, Pakistan?
More importantly, what is it going to take to finish OEF Afghanistan and bring our troops home from there?
As we continue to increase our commitments in Afghanistan, and the larger GWOT, our troop deployments also increase. There is the continual drawdown in Iraq, and while that is a tremendous help it still does not meet the overall needs of our current forces. So, as we continue in the eighth year of Operation Enduring Freedom, and the sixth year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our forces continue to be heavily over-committed. The strain of multiple tours, short dwell times, and long deployments takes its toll on our troops and equipment. At the same time, the policies of stop-loss and IRR recall continue. These are policies that continue to be needed now due to a previous lack of planning. As 13Stoploss mentions in his blog "Fear",
Can you imagine a combat trained Infantry Battalion losing 40% of its force? Neither could the Pentagon, and that's why there is a stop loss.
This begs the question then, how do we change that? In an environment when our troops are deployed more than ever before, more often and for longer periods, how do we begin to implement polices that will prevent this in the future?
When I first joined VoteVets, the primary fight at the time was for the new GI Bill. I had already been home from Iraq for three years. My GI Bill was gone, and I already had my degree. So, the new GI Bill did nothing to affect me. I wanted to push it though, so that it would help the future generations of soldiers that will still be fighting long after I'm gone. That is the perspective I now have as I discuss the problems of the IRR and stop-loss. Our own Alex Horton has written at his blog ArmyOfDude, an open letter to President Obama emphasizing and personalizing the need to end these policies. While we all understand the need to do it, I would like to have a discussion here as to the how.
Last June I wrote an article regarding possible cutbacks in troops or equipment. Essentially, Admiral Mullen and Representative Murtha both agreed that either troops or equipment would need to be cut in order to cover the high cost of our overwhelming OPTEMPO. And yet, every time I turn around I read yet another article about an amazing fighter jet, or spy plane, or other whizbang device that we are spending billions on. And yet, every time I have mentioned the need to expand the size of the fighting force, I always hear the complaint that such a large force is too expensive to maintain. But a plane that cost $300 million and has never flown a single mission in Iraq is so important that we have to order them by the hundreds.
So, I have a few ideas. First, pass the Dwell Time bill. While this may cause readiness issues in the beginning it will go a long way towards ensuring a capable fighting force in the future. I would rather give some ground now if it means a victory down the road. The Dwell Time Bill is needed to ensure that the other efforts at solving this crises have the opportunity to work. Without proper dwell time, the effectiveness of all other methods is hindered.
Second, it is my understanding that most USAF deployments are 90-120 days. I believe it would be a great benefit to our Reserve and Guard forces, as well as IRR troops, if active component USAF deployments were extended to six months. This, of course would also mandate appropriate downtime between deployments. These Air Force soldiers could then be used to augment other forces who are currently undermannned or relying on expensive contractors to fill the slots. I have seen cooks, fuelers and mechanics from the Army National Guard provide convoy security and conduct night-time residence searches and roving TCP's in Baghdad. I'm sure an Air Force soldier could be used to do the same. Marines are currently deployed for 6-7 months at a time. This is reasonable, as long as dwell time is given. Army tours need to be cut to the same time period to match. Also, the Narmy, like the Air Force, may need to be more heavily utilized. I would rather have a bunch of active component sailors filling slots in deployments than to have to rely on contractors or IRR/stop-loss personnel. Third, we need to stop spending money on high end equipment that is not needed for this fight. I know the Raptors are neat and cool. So is kung-fu. But we need to prioritize our spending.
This brings me to my final point. We need to increase the size of our fighting forces so that stop-loss and IRR recall become a part of history. We need to grow our military to the point that a loss of troops prior to or during deployment, due to the end of their term of service, does not affect readiness. This is an effort that will take considerable initiative. It will require ingenuity and perseverance. But most of all, it will cost money. That is what it all comes down to. We need to stop buying whizbang gadgets and start using our defense budget to grow our military by any means possible. Offer larger bonuses, especially in regards to retention. Grant better benefits. Pay our soldiers a wage that is competitive with the outside world. Do whatever it takes.
The Iraqi government recently agreed to a new Status of Forces Agreement with the US, this last November. Among the many provisions of that agreement is one that gives the Iraqis the authority to determine which security companies are allowed to operate in Iraq. It is no surprise that they have decided that Blackwater has to go.
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq will not allow Blackwater Worldwide to continue providing security protection for U.S. diplomats in the country, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Thursday, a move that would deprive U.S. officials of their primary protection force.
Blackwater's image in Iraq was irrevocably tarnished by the September 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square. Five former Blackwater guards pleaded not guilty Jan. 6 in federal court in Washington to manslaughter and gun charges in that shooting.
Even before the shooting, Blackwater had a reputation for aggressive operations and using excessive force in protecting American officials, an allegation the company has disputed.
Blackwater still has contracts with the US in various other countries around the world. However, this should send a clear signal to the US State Department when those contracts come up for renewal.
The decision not to issue Blackwater an operating license was due to "improper conduct and excessive use of force," said Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf.
Neither Khalaf nor a U.S. Embassy official gave a date for Blackwater personnel to leave the country and neither said whether they would be allowed to continue guarding U.S. diplomats during the interim.
I have made the point previously, that the use of contractors in Iraq is unnecessary spending. Now the State Department will need to decide what contractor will take over this mission, or whether to turn it over to the US military.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, warning against impulsive U.S. action in Iraq, says that whether the struggling nation backslides into a cycle of violence partly depends on how President-elect Barack Obama decides to pull out American forces.
"An irresponsible withdrawal now is exactly the wrong medicine," Cheney said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press.
Cheney is leaving the White House after a government career spanning four decades, including stints as defense secretary, President Gerald R. Ford's chief of staff and a longtime congressman from Wyoming. In a broadcast interview earlier this week, the vice president dismissed as "urban legend" the notion that he played his role as second-in-command like a wizard, controlling the levers of the Bush presidency from behind the scenes.
Strong-willed to the end, Cheney defended the Iraq war against critics, saying that while there is much work left to do, much progress has been made. Obama has said he wants all combat troops out of Iraq by the spring of 2010, leaving behind a residual force of trainers, air controllers, advisers and logistics soldiers until the end of the mission.
The 16-month timeline for withdrawal was originally requested by the government of Iraq. PM Maliki, and numerous parliamentarians have been increasingly adamant about the need for US withdrawal. So Cheney is directly contradicting the wishes of the Iraqi government. But he is also disagreeing with the same commanders he praised before.
Generals Petraeus and Odierno recently submitted plans for just such a withdrawal. While it does not meet the 16-month timeline that was requested by the Iraqi government, it still withdraws troops faster than that which is required by the recent SOFA.
The plan, completed last week, envisions withdrawing two more brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops, from Iraq in the first six months of 2009, the military officials said. But that would leave 12 combat brigades in Iraq by June 2009, and while declining to be more specific, the officials made clear that the withdrawal of all combat forces under the generals' recommendations would not come until some time after May 2010, Mr. Obama's target.
So once again, as usual, the right-wing seems to be at odds with the wishes of the Iraqi government, the wishes of the American people, and the US military.
Recently, the Iraqi parliament agreed to a SOFA with the United States. This allows for the beginning of a troop withdrawal, and provides goals and timelines for that withdrawal. All troops are to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by July, 2009, and from Iraq by the end of 2011. In accordance with the Iraqi government's original request for a 16-month withdrawal, President-elect Obama has stated that he will try to remove troops more quickly than the timeline outlined in the SOFA.
But that just covers US troops, not all of the others. Britain has roughly 4,000 troops still in country, and several other nations have smaller contingents there as well. The UN mandate governing their presence expires at the end of this year. Barring that, it would be up to the Iraqi government to request their presence longer. That has been rejected.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament rejected for the second time Saturday a draft law allowing foreign troops from countries other than the United States to remain after the end of the year, lawmakers said.
The law drafted by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would allow all foreign troops other than Americans to stay in Iraq until the end of July 2009. It was rejected earlier in the week and is expected to approved in another vote after Christmas.
Those opposed to the draft law were primarily lawmakers loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
A separate agreement approved recently by the Iraqi government and parliament allows the U.S. to retain troops in the country until the end of 2011. The accord, which takes effect on January 1, gives Iraq strict oversight over the nearly 150,000 American troops now in the country.
"Voting was carried out in parliament on the draft law and it was rejected and turned back to the government," Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said.
Britain will withdraw its 4,000 troops by the end of May. After the Dec. 31 expiration of the U.N. mandate authorizing military operations in Iraq, the only coalition troops to remain will be the U.S., Britain, Australia, El Salvador, Estonia and Romania.
Australia has the largest force among the last four countries with 1,000 troops, followed by Romania with 501, El Salvador with 200 and Estonia with 40.
So, this begs the question, what now? If this is not approved, there will be no legal basis for these troops to remain in Iraq, and they will have to begin withdrawal immediately. What I find interesting about this situation that seems very under-reported in the mainstream media is all of the rhetoric we have been hearing for the last 5 years about the people wanting us there. We have been told for 5 years now that the Iraqi people want us there and appreciate us for liberating them. However, as soon as they have a functional government together, the first thing they do is ask us to leave.
Today's agreement in Baghdad between Gordon Brown and the Iraqi prime minister to formally end Britain's military mission in Iraq by 31 May next year marks the end of one of the most controversial operations involving Britain's armed forces in modern times.
Opposition at home to the 2003 invasion and lack of any coherent post-invasion plan has had a serious impact on the morale of the armed forces, how they see the general public, and how the public regards them. Their initial welcome in Basra and Iraq's Shia-dominated south soon evaporated as militia filled the gap left by the failure to follow military action with economic and political progress.
At home, a growing feeling that British troops were not being appreciated led General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, to call for welcome-home parades.
In Basra, Britain's military commanders became increasingly frustrated by the time it took to train effective Iraqi security forces.
The Iraqi occupation by British forces has provoked much controversy in Iraq, at home in Britain, and here in the US. It wasn't long ago that British forces made a deal with the Mahdi Army to stay on their bases in Basra while they fought it out with American and Iraqi forces.
A dangerous period for British forces was the spell, partly due to US pressure, that they spent hunkered down at their Basra Palace base getting shot at every day, with supply vehicles being regularly targeted by militants.
A deal last year with leaders of the Mahdi Army, the militia of the Shia radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, allowed the British to leave Basra and set up camp at Basra airport in a move that was criticised both by the US and a worried Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister.
After this, Maliki asked the US for help in bringing law and order to the south. US troops and Iraqi forces from outside the region swooped on Basra in an operation called the Charge of the Knights. British commanders were not told about the operation until the last moment. Basra has become much quieter, though it is far from stable.
Most of the 4,100 British troops stuck at Basra airport since September 2007 will be home by mid-summer - not a moment too soon, defence chiefs privately make clear. About 300 will stay to continue training Iraq army officers and naval forces patrolling the waters bordering Iran. The one issue to be resolved is an agreement providing a legal basis for their presence in Iraq after 31 December when the current UN mandate runs out. This issue is before the Iraqi council of representatives, though British officials do not expect any complications.
I personally find that specific battle in Basra extremely intriguing. The US was fighting against a group that had privately made a deal with the British, and that were Iraqi nationalists. At the same time, the US was fighting alongside an Iranian-backed militia. In the end, it was a cease-fire called from an Iranian Brigadier General in the city of Qom that settled the whole thing. Once the general had spoken with the leadership in the Badr Corps, who the US was aiding, they agreed to certain preconditions set forth by Moqtada Sadr. This had to have been one of the most confusing battles of the war.
"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.
