Among the tragic news in Haiti, and the expected dissection of the Senate race in Massachusetts this week, there's another story going on that likely will not get as much coverage, but is still extremely important. Dozens of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from VoteVets.org are flying into Washington, DC to join with the Campaign to Close Guantanamo in lobbying Congress to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
These veterans will deliver a letter to a number of Congressmen and Senators, co-signed by about 2000 veterans, calling for Congress to follow President Obama's lead, and move to shut down the facility that has become a blight on America's reputation.
Indeed, the more time goes on, the more disturbing news comes out. Just this week, Harper's has an investigative news story that punches holes in the "official" story of three Gitmo detainees who were found to have killed themselves. In the story, we learn about "Camp No," which Keith Olbermann rightfully called "a Gitmo within Gitmo." The facility was nicknamed Camp No, because if anyone asked whether it existed, the response would be "No, it doesn't." We don't really know who was in charge of Camp No, or what went on there. However, we do know from the Harper's report that the secret facility played some kind of role the night the detainees supposedly killed themselves.
As I've chronicled here before, the stories of torture and endless detainment without trial that are all associated with Gitmo have served as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda. While closing Gitmo won't end the ability of al Qaeda to recruit, restoring the rule of law and human rights will deliver a serious blow to their efforts. And, the fewer people they are able to recruit, the safer our troops and America will be.
Additionally, removing these kinds of symbols is essential to a counter-insurgency strategy working, which the President has decided on for Afghanistan. That's why even General Petraeus has said that closing Guantanamo is of utmost importance. A key element of a working counter-insurgency strategy is winning hearts and minds and gaining trust of key leaders. The mere presence of Gitmo, and the stories of torture it represents makes it all that much harder for our forces to forge a trusting working relationship with local leaders.
The most recent argument for keeping Gitmo open is the failed attack by the Christmas bomber. Trained and equipped in Yemen, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received help from Yemenis who were once held at Gitmo, and released by the Bush administration. How could we, the argument goes, close the facility and let all these potential terrorists back into the field?
First, no one is talking about opening the doors of Gitmo and letting everyone just walk out. The Obama Administration has moved, after years of delay, to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a handful of other terrorists. There is no indication that they will be the only ones to face trial and likely conviction.
Secondly, the Christmas bomber will now be handled the correct way. He'll be tried in our criminal courts, convicted, and likely sent to our Supermax prison that has held some of the world's most heinous terrorists and criminals, safely and securely. When he is, there will be no clearer example that we are much better off taking terrorists and putting them through proper trial and imprisonment, not simply tossing them in Gitmo without a real plan. Doing so will help restore our reputation as a fair nation of laws, and will put a terrorist away for the rest of his life, legally.
For all of these reasons, those who actually fought terrorists in war, and know how they operate and think are coming to DC to tell Congress to move without delay on closing the prison at Guantanamo.
For too long, those who haven't served on the ground in these wars have been allowed fear monger, distort, and downright lie about the issue - and politicians and the media have largely been too eager to accommodate them. We're not going to let that happen anymore. We'll force our way into the debate, whether they like it or not. That's what our DC trip is all about. It's a matter of America's reputation, it's a matter of our troops' safety, and it's a matter of our nation's security.
The failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airplane by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has raised a ton of questions - from what holes there are in airline security, to how he wasn't picked up before on suspicion of terrorist activity. But, to me and the forces in or heading to Afghanistan, one of the most pressing questions is why we're sending nearly every Marine and Soldier we have to Afghanistan, when Abdulmutallab and a Somali man arrested for plotting a similar attack last month apparently had no real connection to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed, as now has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab received materials and training in Yemen, a largely lawless, poor country just south of Saudi Arabia. The Somali man, picked up in Mogadishu, seems to have been wearing a similar device as Abdulmutallab, suggesting he received his materials and training from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as well.
Yes, the United States has done some right things to address the threat from this region - sending over $40 million in aid to Yemen last year to fight the squalor-like conditions in which many Yemenis live, and contributes to an atmosphere that breeds terror, and nearly $70 million in counter-terror funds, to help the government directly combat al-Qaeda. Those funds are expected to increase this year, as well they should.
Clearly, however, money is not enough. It's not enough to fight al-Qaeda in Yemen, or anywhere else throughout Africa, or any region in the future where al-Qaeda takes foot. The United States and its allies have the right to work in conjunction with governments to strike al-Qaeda camps and leaders, or do it ourselves if the in-country government is unable to.
That leads me back to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yes, the region is still a major center of al Qaeda activity, and yes, our military must be involved in the region to strike at the terror network. But, given the ability of al-Qaeda to spread and pop up in areas around the globe where we are not present, it simply doesn't make sense anymore to engage in a long-term counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which focuses on beating back insurgents rather than al Qaeda, and securing the country at large. That strategy relies on nearly every troop we have, and could have many of them stuck there far past President Obama's 2011 deadline, given Richard Engel's recent report on NBC that Afghan security forces are nowhere near ready, and may never be.
Now, yes, if it works, a counter-insurgency strategy could largely quiet al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, the same as a narrower counter-terror strategy would, but at what cost? What about the other branches of al-Qaeda around the world? It's clear they'll simply pick up the slack, in terms of striking the U.S. Without enough forces to stay flexible ourselves, and without indigenous governments capable of crushing al-Qaeda in their nation, we're simply letting al-Qaeda breed elsewhere, largely unfettered.
So, as President Obama examines the holes in security, he would be wise to also reexamine his decision to commit almost every troop we have to Afghanistan. Sun Tsu said to know thy enemy and thyself. We know al-Qaeda isn't going to stay put to fight where we want to fight. We know that we simply don't have the numbers to secure all of Afghanistan as part of a long-term counter-insurgency and fight al-Qaeda elsewhere. Combined, those facts suggest the far wiser course for the U.S. is to not rely on a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan for the long-term, but free up troops to take part in counter-terror operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, or wherever al-Qaeda may try to set up base next.
This Thanksgiving, the thing that will stick the most with me is while watching football, we'll surely see the thanks to and from the troops videos just before commercial breaks. You know, the ones that have a young Army Sergeant in Iraq saying hi to his wife and kids, and another where a public figure thanks the troops for their service. This is the eighth year in a row we'll see these videos here at home.
At the same time, I can't help but think that some young grunt is watching these videos for maybe the fourth or fifth time from a TV that the USO set up in the warzone. And, while he'll strap on his rifle and go whenever called, part of him is thinking "How many more Thanksgivings am I going to have to watch these videos from over here? If you want to thank me, let me eat some turkey at home. Let me see my girlfriend and parents and friends for more than just short stints at home. Don't you have someone who can rotate in here for me so I can stop doing these tours for a while?"
Thanks to President Obama, some troops will see a bit of relief. By ending the Stop Loss policy, and supporting giving troops "dwell time" (as much time at home as deployed), our troops will get rest.
But, unfortunately, given the op-tempo of the wars we're in, added to rumors that we'll be sending an increase of troops to Afghanistan, there are no guarantees that troops might not see their sixth or even seventh Thanksgiving at war over the course of the next several years.
As Spencer Ackerman correctly notes, the reported decision to increase of troops to Afghanistan means our force will once again be at a breaking point. Now, we'll have to wait to see how President Obama addresses this point, but without a speedier withdrawal from Iraq, or a concerted efforts to grow the size of the Armed Forces at a more rapid pace than we've seen, we're going to be left with very few troops in the bank, so to speak. That means sending the same troops back out there again and again and again as soon as their dwell time is up.
Don't get me wrong, troops appreciate all the thank you messages, and getting a piece of home while watching football in the USO tent is maybe the absolute best feeling in the world when you're in Iraq or Afghanistan. But at a certain point, for those there for yet another holiday, the thanks start to ring a bit more hollow.
So this Thanksgiving, when you see those videos during the game, take a moment to think about that young grunt watching these videos from war yet again, and others like him. Put yourself in his boots. Carry that feeling with you through the rest of the year, and let it affect how you view all the news from the warzone, and decisions we make about the wars here at home.
I never thought Sarah Palin could say something that would leave me totally speechless, but this time, she's done it. Reports Politico:
Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday accused President Barack Obama of not acknowledging the sacrifices made by the men and women in the U.S. military.
"There's been a lack of acknowledgement by our president in understanding what it is that the American military provides in terms of, obviously, the safety, the security of our country," Palin said during an interview with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren. "I want him to acknowledge the sacrifices that these individual men and women - our sons, our daughters, our moms, our dads, our brothers and sisters - are providing this country to keep us safe."
Hasn't acknowledged their sacrifices? Seriously? What's this look like?
It looks, to me, like more than the last President did.
This president also fought for, and got passed and signed advanced funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, so that we can honor the sacrifices from our troops and veterans, by properly taking care of them. Advance Funding has been a top priority of all veterans groups for a while. President Obama made it into law.
The president ended the Stop Loss policy, which involuntarily extended troops in theater past their commitment - one of the most offensive policies to troops who made incredible sacrifice. The President ended the ban on photos of the return ceremony for the fallen at Dover Air Base and other ports of entry, allowing families to decide if their loved ones casket could be shown. Now, all of America can join in the solemn return ceremony, and see those who made the ultimate sacrifice be honored.
This president also ordered his Pentagon to re-prioritize their funding requests, to move away from high-end, unneeded weapons systems, and towards on-the-ground equipment that our troops in the field right now desperately need. One of those big ticket items, funding for more F-22s, was finally ended under the Obama administration, while funding for more desperately needed on the ground Mine Resistant Ambush Vehicles (MRAPs) was increased. Who opposed ending F-22 funding? Palin's party. I had a throwdown with a GOP Congressman on TV about it.
Where was Sarah Palin, saying Phil Gingrey wasn't acknowledging the sacrifices of our troops? I just checked my cell phone records, and no, she definitely didn't call me to say she stood with the troops on that issue.
Afghanistan? Yes, I want the President to make a call as much as anyone, and wish he could have started to formulate a new strategy earlier. But, at the end of the day, I'd much rather him take time to get the strategy right than just roll the dice on a gut feeling and hope for the best. Making sure the strategy in Afghanistan is right, and that we have what we need to get it done and leave, is much more respectful of our troops and the sacrifices they make. Only someone who had no concept of their sacrifice would shoot first, ask questions later.
Of all people, Sarah Palin knows what sacrifices troops make - her son is one. That none of the above even remotely registers in her mind can mean only two things - either her mind exists on an entirely different planet, or she knows she's being completely disingenuous for political reasons.
It seems many military people have made up their mind. As my colleague Richard Smith reports, prior to Palin's visit to Ft. Bragg, book stores couldn't give her book away. Wonder why?
This past week, former Republican Congressman John McHugh, the new secretary of the Army, said that the Army is ready to deal with repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell without a problem.
So why hasn't a repeal been enacted?
To that, I say, we're getting there. In the House, Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran, has taken the lead on the bill to repeal the policy, and has the support of other Iraq and Afghanistan era war veterans, like Tim Walz and Joe Sestak. At VoteVets.org, we're now better than 10,000 signatures (over 5,000 veterans) in favor of a repeal on our online petition.
In the Senate, we're very close to seeing companion legislation introduced. A number of Senators, from Kirsten Gillibrand, to Mark Udall, to John Kerry, to Barbara Boxer have been working on the issue, with many more ready to jump on a bill.
Meanwhile, those opposed to a repeal hang on to this notion that a repeal would affect unit cohesion.
Hurt unit cohesion? For years, the military accepted those with "serious criminal misconduct" issues-aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats-because recruiting under normal standards was falling fast. According to USA Today, one-in-eight Army recruits required a waiver by 2008.
One such recruit was Steven Green, guilty of the brutal murder of a family, and the rape of their young daughter, in Mahmudiya, Iraq. After Green killed the family and raped the young girl, he covered her head with a pillow and shot her. Her body was then burned. The murders set off a wave of anti-American sentiment in Iraq, pushing our battle to win hearts and minds even further back. Green was allowed in on a waiver, despite his three alcohol and drug related arrests.
Meanwhile, a highly decorated Airman is fighting a discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach served in the Air Force, defending America for 18 years. Fehrenbach is now being represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and has nine Air Medals - including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire. He and his wingman spotted armored personnel carriers laying in wait for U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad. Fehrenbach's wingman's plane malfunctioned, so he couldn't accurately fire his weapons. Fehrenbach not only fired his own weapons but he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target. All this while they were under fire.
Tell me now about which person affects cohesion and readiness?
Here's an idea: Let's just keep our best troops, no matter what their background or orientation. Those with a criminal history who have proven to be good troops can stay. Those who are openly gay will abide by the same strict rules that govern heterosexual relationships in the military. If they break the rules, they're out. But if they also prove to be valuable soldiers, we keep them, too. When our top concern is a military made up of the very best society has to offer, America wins.
Momentum is picking up in Congress behind that notion, and that's a good thing. But we still need the President to make his move.
Like most issues, it will take the President to put this issue over the top. During the campaign, he vowed to repeal the policy. Once in office, he deferred to the military, first ordering a study to examine how a repeal might affect things. Now, his own hand-picked Secretary of the Army has given him an answer: It won't affect much.
The fact of the matter is that implementing a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a problem for the military. They can do it quickly and easily. The delay in a repeal has been and continues to be a political problem for politicians.
Last year, as the presidential campaign was heating up, the far right introduced a new group, to counter the progressive voice of the veterans at VoteVets.org. Freedoms Watch started and ended with a sputter, mainly because the group was led by political folks who never served a day in their life - from original leader Ari Fleischer, through Brad Blakeman, who saw the group through to its quick end.
History seems to be repeating itself, with Liz Cheney, rolling out a new neo-con organization, Keep America Safe. The group's mission seems to be two-fold. First, try to rewrite history so that Dick Cheney looks like a visionary. And second, convince Americans that they're all going to die because of Barack Obama.
The problem, however, with this is also two-fold. First, Liz Cheney has no experience fighting wars and gets details wrong when she tries to look like she knows what she's talking about. Second, no matter how tough she talks, Liz Cheney's positions are weak, just like her father's.
From trying to falsely argue that our troops on the battlefield read Miranda rights to those enemy combatants we detain, to claiming that we employ waterboarding on our own soldiers in the same way we did with detainees (around 4:15 in the link), Liz Cheney shows she simply has no idea what she's talking about. It's not surprising, since she's simply carrying on the same failed philosophy put forth by a guy who never had the courage to put on the uniform himself - indeed, actually evaded the call of his nation to do so.
More importantly, though, is that despite her tough bluster, Liz Cheney is an incredibly weak person. Weak people see everything in black and white, and take the easiest path. It's pretty easy to ignore the reputation issues Guantanamo Bay present to our troops in harm's way who are trying to win hearts and minds, or that the facility is used as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. It's easy to ignore what VoteVets.org's Jay Bagwell says in this video - that detainees in Afghanistan had pamphlets on them depicting what happened at Gitmo. It's easy to ignore the Geneva Conventions and human rights laws, and what they say about torture. It's easy to ignore the fact that torture doesn't get actionable intelligence. It's easy to forget that what makes us the greatest nation in the world is partly based on our system of Justice, which involves trials. It's easy to fail to recognize that for the Muslims in the Middle East and Afghanistan region, snatching people up and putting them away forever without a trial is what hardline dictators and regimes do - and that is the real problem that Guantanamo presents.
It takes a strong person to take all those things into consideration, and keep America on the moral high ground, while protecting this nation. Only a morally and intellectually weak person can toss all those considerations away, so willy-nilly. And that's what you have in Liz Cheney.
The ironic part of it is that, especially on Gitmo, those opposed to Liz Cheney have the tougher stance on terrorists. One of the favorite points that neo-cons like to make is that the facility at Gitmo allows detainees to socialize with each other, that they have top notch medical facilities there, and that besides the whole torture thing, they have life pretty good.
Excuse me? People that may have plotted to do America harm have it pretty good? That's not acceptable. By moving the detainees to our Super Max prison and putting them on trial, we can finally convict those who are guilty. Then, we can move those not sentenced to death to solitary at the Supermax, where they'll live out the rest of their days completely alone in a living hell - the fate that they deserve - shut away from the general population, so they cannot influence other prisoners with their bile. That's not only a tougher position than Cheney, it also upholds our values.
It also has been done already with terrorists and done successfully. The Supermax has been the home of Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center; Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11 conspirator; Ahmed Ressam, of the Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who conspired to kill President George W. Bush; Wadih el-Hage, guilty of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya; Jose Padilla, who plotted detonating a dirty bomb; Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing; and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.
In the end, Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe is just a re-run of what has already was tried, and failed in 2008. Namely, that is using the veil of fear to mask what is an non-informed, false, and weak position. Maybe it'll win her points within the extreme right, but the American people have smartened up to her game, and they've decided they're stronger than she is.
In the debate about the internal White House debate on which way to go in Afghanistan, one piece has been seldom talked about - did General Stanley McChrystal hurt his own cause?
There is absolutely no doubt where McChrystal stands: He wants a massive influx of troops, to execute a counter-insurgency strategy, which includes securing the people, taking and holding of areas, and rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban. The strategy would very much mirror what was done in Iraq. Now, leaving aside for the moment whether this strategy would work in Afghanistan, the way the General made his case may have done more harm to his opinion than good.
From his speech in England, to his interview with 60 Minutes, to the piece by Bob Woodward that detailed his fight, the General has been incredibly public, taking the debate out from closed doors. It's hard for me to criticize that in and of itself. After all, the many veterans I represent, and I, stood up for General Shinseki when he took his criticism public of the Bush/Rumseld strategy to invade Iraq. VoteVets.org gave voice to Generals Eaton and Batiste, who resigned from the military so they could speak out.
But therein lies the rub - from Generals MacArthur to Shinseki, history has taught us that trying to pressure your Commander in Chief from the outside almost never results in a change of opinion from the President. In fact, it breeds tension that could lose the debate, if not your job.
For all the criticism from the left and right about President Obama, no one can argue that, so far, he hasn't deferred to military leaders on most issues. From the early days of his administration when he approved a troop increase for Afghanistan, to his ordering a study rather than a quick repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to keeping pictures of Abu Ghraib under wraps, the President has heeded the advice of military minds, and has been backed up by the most senior retired officer in his inner circle, General James L. Jones.
On this occasion, however, Jones' response to McChrystal has been telling. Jones hasn't taken the General's side, or gone out of his way to defend him. In fact, on CNN, Jones bluntly said of McChrystal's public stance, "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Ouch.
If I had to make a gut call right now, I'd say McChrystal won't get what he was asking for, but more of a hybrid strategy that focuses mainly on counter-terrorism - quick strikes against al Qaeda and some Taliban, yet some more troops to help the Afghan Army in some areas, and train them. Coming from President Obama, who is notoriously non-confrontational, that compromise strategy would mark the first time he's really said 'no' to the military to any real degree, and some of that may have to do with how McChrystal handled all of this. It basically puts McChrystal on warning that he doesn't call the shots.
During the campaign, the President made a constant point of saying he wanted vigorous debate within the White House, and wanted to be told when he may be wrong. All indications are that he's getting his wish. That the debate has spilled outside the confines of the situation room, however, might not be the change he was looking for, or something he'll stand for much longer.
If there's one thing that the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll tells us, it's that when the President outlines a good policy and speaks directly to the American people about it, he can connect. So, it's not a surprise that after a summer where the President was pretty quiet on health care, September has seen his numbers on that issue begin to turn around. Yet, as casualties increase in Afghanistan, while the country teeters on the brink, public opinion has swung clearly against the war in the region, as the President has spent most of his time talking about domestic priorities.
The administration continues to say, and I continue to believe, that Afghanistan/Pakistan is not a war of choice. But, how we continue to wage it is a series of choices. And, on these choices, the President must make some relatively quick decisions, and make his case to the American people.
So, what are those questions that the President needs to answer, and take to the American people?
The only thing more "out there" than Joe Wilson's disrespectful display during the President's speech to Congress on Health Care is Representative Wilson's all over the place take on two of the largest government-run health systems there are - the ones that benefit our troops and veterans.
Wilson has railed against health care reform, warning that offering more choice to people amounts to a government takeover of health insurance. To him, it's an evil that has to be defeated.
Yet, at the same time, Wilson hasn't said whether he's opted into TRICARE for Life. The completely government-run health insurance system for certain military retirees is available to Wilson, as he's a 31-year Guard and Reserve veteran (though he joined after getting out of Vietnam). If he's not, of course, then he's taking insurance from the government-run pool offered to Congressmen. Then, there's all of our active duty service members who are on TRICARE - stuck in an evil government system that must have turned them into Communists by now.
Wilson has saved them and gotten them out of TRICARE, right?
Right?
"TRICARE provides world class health care," said Wilson in a press release. "I believe TRICARE is one part of our health care system that's working."
What?! Joe Wilson is all for this horrible fascist system of government care?
Well, maybe not. Despite being against government health care, and then paying lip service about the awesomeness of government-run TRICARE, Wilson's voted to underfund it.
In 2007, Wilson was against $1.9 billion for military medical care (including funds for Walter Reed) and in 2005 voted against expanding TRICARE eligibility for our Guard and Reserve components, despite the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has them fighting alongside the active component more than ever before.
OK, so Wilson suffers from split personality disorder when it comes to government health care for troops. But, he must be against the Department of Veterans Affairs, another bastion of Marxist thought, turning generations of American veterans into pinkos.
"With a growing number of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we must go to great measures to ensure our veterans receive the best care possible. That means greater oversight of the facilities, hospitals, and clinics that care for our veterans. They deserve access to the highest quality medical technology and a health care system that is responsive to their immediate and long-term needs. Their sacrifice and commitment to this nation deserves nothing less," said Wilson on his campaign site.
Gosh, that sounds just like Hitler, doesn't it?
Oh, but thank heaven, Joe Wilson voted repeatedly to cut veterans care, and save us from modern day Leninism. He voted for a $14 million cut in 2003, against $1.6 billion for the agency in 2005, $2.9 billion again in 2005, for a $13.5 billion cut in 2005, against $1.8 billion in 2003, and millions and millions more.
Maybe it's asking too much for me to ask that Joe Wilson think like a rational human being, but I'll ask anyway. He needs to decide whether offering citizens the option of getting the same kind of coverage we in the military gets is evil or not evil.
If it's not - if military and veterans government-run insurance and care is not malevolent - then he needs to stop his shouting and properly fund TRICARE and the VA, and let everyone have the option of getting a public insurance plan.
But, if government-run care and insurance really is wicked, then he needs to stop lying about how he feels about TRICARE and Veterans Care. He should tell the truth about why he voted against funding for those programs - because he thinks troops and veterans should be left out in the cold and turned away in return for their service.
Until he's honest about his position on Veterans Care, Military Care, and the Public Option, I can only saythis: Representative Wilson, YOU LIE.
This week brought tragic news that particularly hit hard for the VoteVets.org family. Among the painful and heartbreaking losses of those Killed in Action was Bill Cahir, a Marine Sergeant, killed in Afghanistan.
Bill epitomized what is so great about so many who serve our nation in uniform. At the age of 34, he enlisted, motivated by the September 11th attacks. But, his first action wasn't taking on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He was deployed twice to Iraq, from 2004-2005, and again from 2007-2008. If Bill, a political progressive, thought Iraq wasn't the war we should be in at the time, his willingness and readiness to go and stand by his men sure took precedence over his personal feelings. Then, this May, he was sent to Afghanistan, serving in the Helmand Province, which is one of the most violent areas in the region that very few Americans know about.
Between his time in Iraq and his service in Afghanistan, Bill ran for Congress. It would have been incredibly easy - and everyone would have said advisable - to come back and rest after two tours in Iraq. But Bill, whose line of work was journalism, saw that Capitol Hill needed more leadership. His own comfort took a backseat to his sense of responsibility.
The seriousness with which he took that responsibility is why VoteVets.org PAC endorsed him in his primary race, which he ultimately lost.
And though he will never be able to make a run for office again, we at VoteVets.org are not done talking about him, or the people like him all over America who are still alive, and mix patriotism, progressivism, and sense of duty. Continuing to remember Bill and what he stood for, and standing up for the people like him, is the best way to honor his memory.
It's essential that everyone know about people like Bill Cahir, whose overriding purpose in life was to help and defend others. That's why we were heartened to see Chris Matthews devoted a segment to Bill's memory on Hardball the other day.
We're hopeful that other news shows took notice, and remember that as we debate health care or energy or stimulus funds (all of which ostensibly are meant to improve America) there are real American lives being risked every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want to make America better, too. It doesn't take much for the news to put a talking heads segment aside for the day (including any that I might be called to do) to tell amazing stories like Bill's.
Note: Bill left unborn twin daughters and a wife. A memorial fund has been established to help provide an education to the daughters who will never be able to meet their amazing father. You can help by making checks payable to the "Bill Cahir Memorial Fund" and sending them to: Burk and Herbert Bank, c/o Mark Ragland, P.O. Box 268, Alexandria, Va., 22313.
Tomorrow, under an agreement with the Iraqi government, American troops are slated to completely pull back from major cities. The Iraqi security forces don't seem ready for it. And, while it seems counter-intuitive, if they aren't getting their act together, we need to speed up our departure.
In his trip to Iraq in April, President Obama said, "It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. They need to take responsibility for their country."
That much is true. What is also true is that it hasn't happened. What's true is that the Iraqis seem less interested in political progress that would lead to a relatively peaceful Iraq, and more interested in US Forces staying indefinitely to protect them from killing each other. Sure, Prime Minister Maliki says the right things about wanting the US out of Iraq, but that's purely political - he has to say those things so as not to look like a US puppet.
But, beneath the surface, there's been no political progress. There still is no oil sharing agreement, no resolution to the strife that has continued to affect Kirkuk, and no settlement among the many factions that will allow them to live side by side in peace.
And so, if the US pulls back, there's a powder keg ready to explode, with an ill-equipped Iraqi military left to try to hold things together. Frankly, the Iraqi military will never be well-trained enough to handle major explosions of violence, only minor disputes. Iraqis know this, which is why they'll continue to rely on us as a crutch as long as they can.
The problem with that is, if we have one foot in Iraq and one foot out, we are going to have a scenario when Americans think this was is over and one day they wake up to 8 or 9 dead troops in the streets of Iraq. Besides being a disaster in and of itself, it becomes a political problem for President Obama and Democrats, who own the situation now. To borrow a phrase from John McCain on Afghanistan, we'd merely be "muddling through" Iraq. That's not in US troops' interest, and certainly not in American interests.
We've already seen violence ramp up in Iraq, as surge troops have left and others pulled back. Just last week, over thirty people were killed in a series of attacks, on June 22, with at least two dozen more injured. It's exactly what I and others said it would be. We were the cork on the bottle, and for all the talk about the surge being a success, without political and diplomatic progress, it ultimately meant absolutely nothing.
I was on Hardball in July of last year about it, and said the surge was a failure in that sense, and guest-host Mike Barnicle was nearly apoplectic about it.
BARNICLE: Did I hear you correctly that you said you didn't think the surge was a success?
SOLTZ: It's not a success. I mean, we've not seen political reconciliation in Iraq. We are about to have a complete stir-up in Kirkuk. We have a situation in Afghanistan where it's totally, you know, less secure now than it was before.
The purpose of the surge is to make America safer. And I don't think anybody believes that. And I think that Senator McCain is, you know, off base like George Bush. And that Senator Obama is specifically right to continue to talk about strategy and diplomacy and defeating al Qaeda worldwide than get stuck talking about, you know, a tank platoon or an infantry platoon in the streets of Baghdad.
Now we see that, indeed, the surge meant nothing without political progress.
The question is, where do we go from here? President Obama has got to get tough with the Iraqis and make good on what he said during the campaign. I'm not privy to all the negotiations with Iraq, or any attempts to bring sides together. What I do know, however, is that there haven't been any results, either because President Obama hasn't tried hard enough, or because his efforts have failed.
Whatever the case, the President absolutely has to resist any temptation to buy more time for political progress by keeping troops there to continue to coddle Iraq. All it will mean is more violence that has American troops in the cross-hairs. The President must tell the Iraqis that, if anything, we're going to speed up our timeline to leave Iraq if they continue to stall political progress - that their internal political problems aren't worth American blood.
Like any political leaders, those in Iraq don't want to lose power, which they most certainly would if the nation falls apart into a loose patchwork of clans and fiefdoms. So, in the end, only the realization that their nation is about to fall apart and they won't have Americans around to keep it together, will be the kick in the pants Iraqi political leaders need to settle their major differences.
It's time for President Obama to recognize that, and get tough. If the Iraqis aren't committed to dealing with their internal problems then we should expedite our withdrawal. American troops should never be more committed to the peace and security of a foreign country more than those who live there.
Let me get this straight. The latest polls say three-quarters of the American people want a public option in health care, yet it's in question. But, Congress is about to throw $369 million (on a down-payment of $2 billion) for a dozen F-22 fighter jets that even the Pentagon doesn't want. Oh, and the money for it? It's coming out of funds that were set aside to clean up dangerous nuclear waste in the U.S.
Only in Washington.
For those not familiar with the F-22 and why it's a waste, let me explain. It's one of the most - if not the most advanced air-to-air fighters in the world.... To fight the Soviet Union's next generation fighters. That's right, that's why it was developed. The fighter has limited air-to-ground capabilities, which renders it pretty much useless in the wars we're fighting right now, and might be fighting well into the future. President Obama and Secretary Gates have rightly decided to shift our procurement to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which we could actually use, because of its air-to-ground and stealth capabilities.
Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters. Secretary Gates asked for only four more, to complete what the Pentagon said it could use. After that, the military doesn't want any more of them. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for it saying, "The time has come to move on."
Apparently not those looking out for defense contractors, though.
And so, Congress is about to use the Defense Authorization Bill to pay for fighters we don't need from Lockheed-Martin, while taking money from cleaning up nuclear waste. Six decades of U.S. nuclear weapons research, testing, and production activities have left dozens of Department of Energy sites contaminated by radioactive and hazardous waste. The contamination threatens workers, communities, and the environment, including major water supplies.
Now, other veterans and I aren't for cutting the Pentagon budget in a way that would hurt our troops in the field, or hurt our ability to defend America now or in the future. But, our money is best spent on equipment that is so desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan - items like the Stryker armored vehicle, which the troops and veterans of VoteVets.org have almost unanimously raved about, for its ability to maneuver while protecting them from IEDs. That helps us a lot more than planes sitting idle somewhere.
So, a warning. To any in Congress who vote to keep this money for the F-22 in, don't try to present it as a pro-military vote. The military doesn't want it. Troops can't use it. Most veterans would say they're not for it. And none of us are for letting dangerous nuclear waste continue to seep into our land and water. So don't try to tie this pork to troops and veterans.
In fact, those who really care about the military, troops, veterans, and America will vote to strip the money for the F-22 out. We'll be watching.
Today in 1944, Operation Neptune commenced. It's the kind of operation that had never been seen before, and with the changes in wars we're fighting, and how we fight them, we'll probably never see again.
One simply cannot overstate the bravery, heroism, and valor that our troops showed on those beaches, or how their actions preserved freedom for the entire world.
We at VoteVets.org honor all those who served in our Armed Forces, in all wars and eras. But today, we want to give a special thanks to the Greatest Generation, and honor those who lost their lives to protect ours.
If anyone out there reading served in WWII, or has stories to share about it (especially D-Day), we encourage you to post a diary, or add it to the comments here.
Did Dick Cheney knowingly send intelligence officials to Congress to mislead them about the use of waterboarding? Did the Vice President himself?
We simply don't know. But we need to know, in light of the explosive report in the Washington Post today, that the Vice President took a very personal role in some Congressional briefings.
Now, why would veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan care about this? Isn't this a political issue? Maybe, but it has far reaching implications for our troops in the field.
First - we absolutely have to send the message to the Muslim world that to the degree that we did torture, we fully investigated how those tactics came to be employed (including how it may have been hidden at the time), and held accountable those who were at fault.
To be clear, President Obama is making great progress by ending the use of torture, and moving to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo. But, it makes it harder for our troops to win hearts and minds, and still serves as a great terrorist recruiting tool, if there is word out there that the United States tortured, and let people responsible walk, without accountability.
Second - We have to send the message to our allies that when we violate international law (as General Petraeus has said), we fully investigate and hold people accountable. If we can't make good on our agreements in the Geneva Conventions, then it severely and adversely affects the trust of the world to uphold our other agreements.
Further, it hurts our ability to build coalitions in the future, when going to war is truly in our national security interests (unlike Iraq). It's always somewhat en vogue to bash the international community, but the fact of the matter is that we need the nations of the world to trust us, especially if we're to ensure that future conflicts don't fall just on the shoulders of our troops.
I see the appeal of moving ahead, and not looking back, when it comes to torture. Most people would like to just move on and forget about the past eight years. But, we can't.
The old saying from Santayana is "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." We can't learn from recent history unless we know everything about the recent history of torture. That's why we need to investigate the whole truth about torture, now.
A couple of days ago, I chronicled the quickening departure of some big military names from the Republican party, those concerned about the party moving even farther to the right a number of issues, including torture. What struck me at the time is that General David Petraeus came out against torture and for closing Guantanamo.
I was stunned, however, when he admitted today that the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions. Without saying specifically how we did (though it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out), Petraeus said on FOX News:
Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Today, VoteVets.org released a powerful new video, featuring Jay Bagwell, who was counterintel in Afghanistan.
It's yet another voice from someone who knows, against the use of torture. But, stunningly, Jay recounts how some detainees brought in actually had pamphlets on them portraying the facility at Guantanamo.
And, Jay says, "I believe that an atmosphere was created by the civilian leadership in this country, where there was a systematic, widespread, premeditated emphasis on employing torture unnecessarily."
This has to be investigated now. Whether its an outside commission or Congressional panel doesn't matter as much as the truth being investigated and presented to the American people.
You can help make that happen, by signing our petition here:
Last year, those on the right loved General Petraeus. You couldn't debate anyone on the neocon side without them trying to hide behind the General. There were even rumors swirling that Republicans would recruit him to be their nominee in 2012. Then, supporters of Governor Palin found their new nominee for 2012, but they think General Petraeus would make a fine subordinate to the Governor in a Dream Ticket in four years.
Well, don't look now, but our friend Sam Stein at the Huffington Post reports:
General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.
General Petraeus goes on to say that he believes we need to stay within the Geneva Convention, and that closing Gitmo "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
Of course, this flies in the face of the Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney crowd - those who believe that we're safer when we do things that serve as great recruiting tools for al Qaeda.
I'm guessing this disqualifies him from any kind of "Draft Petraeus" efforts on the Republican side.
I just read this piece, and it's incredibly moving. You don't think much of newspaper reporters as actual people (unless they're on TV all the time), but they are. Mark Berman is the person the Washington Post has assigned to cover funerals at Arlington, when the families of the fallen agree. Today, he has a piece in the Washington Post.:
When I first started, I was worried about bothering the families and concerned that attending so many burials would be a regular date with an emotional battering ram, leaving me either a wreck or, worse, numb to the sadness. Now I know that it's pretty much impossible to grow numb to such events....
The worst, for me, is the children: not the babies, since they have no idea what's going on, but the little ones just old enough to understand death. In their miniature suits or dresses, they stare wide-eyed at all the dark-clad people gazing fixedly at the wooden box.
He goes on to say what we at VoteVets.org said when it comes to the Dover Photo Ban, which was lifted by President Obama and Secretary Gates this year:
I know that feeling, too: If I weren't covering these burials, there's no chance I'd be as aware of them and of news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's astonishingly easy to block out the ongoing sacrifice. The military's own 18-year ban on media coverage at Dover Air Force Base, which was lifted this year, helped keep the blinders on. The current Dover policy is like the current Arlington policy: It's the family's choice. Relatives can decide whether the world sees their loved one's return. But for 18 years those who sacrificed their lives for their country returned in secret and in silence.
The whole piece is incredibly moving, and well written. If there's one piece you read today, make it this one.
Four U.S. contractors for the company formerly known as Blackwater were not authorized to carry weapons when they were involved in a deadly shooting in Afghanistan this month, the U.S. military said Tuesday.
Lots of finger pointing in this article on who should get the blame here, but still no answers on just how these guys got a weapon to carry.
When I signed up to serve in the United States Army, I did so because I wanted to serve my country. I wanted to - if called - put my life on the line to defend her, and all she stands for. We who served take an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As a Jew, one of the most important principles to me in our Constitution is religious freedom. Steeped in the history of colonization of America by those who were persecuted for their worship, tolerance of all religions and not putting one ahead of another, is a core principle I would die for.
Little did I know that while I was preparing to go to Iraq, the Bush administration was using Bible passages (both Old and New Testaments) on cover sheets of security reports, emblazoned on top of pictures of our armed forces. The implication was clear - this was a religious war, and our troops were fighting for the God of the Bible.
"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.
