The President must make that clear tonight. Though planned combat operations are done, every single one of the 50,000 remaining troops is a combat troop. There's a reason that convoys are called "combat patrols." There could still be casualties. Whether our troops engage in combat will be decided on the ground in Iraq, not in Washington, DC.
Additionally, the war within Iraq still rages on. There is no stable government. There is no long-term settlement among Iraq's factions on issues such as oil-revenue sharing. We are all pleased that the President stuck to the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the past administration, and the removal of thousands and thousands of Americans is a good development. But, by no means is this war over.
One need look no further than Somalia and Beirut for what happened at what were supposed to just be peacekeeping operations to know that there are no guarantees. Heck, one need look no further than the last declaration of major combat operations being over and "mission accomplished." The point is, the President cannot and should not use this as a "victory speech," no matter what his pollsters tell him. Should he do so, it's very likely to blow up in his face.
Additionally, the President should look to Iraq for lessons that can be applied to Afghanistan - a war he will surely note was put on the back-burner because of Iraq. While the Iraq surge was a tactical success because American troops are the best in the world, it still is not a strategic success. The surge was never complemented by a surge in diplomatic and political armies, and as such, we just were keeping the cork on the bottle. As attacks mount in Iraq among warring factions absent American forces, that lesson has become all too clear.
The President has made his decision to ramp up troop levels in Afghanistan far past what he promised during the campaign. Many veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq disagreed - favoring a more limited counter-terror operation. But, now that the decision has been made, the President must ensure that the Afghanistan surge is not a military one alone. Unless a non-corrupt and stable government with the confidence of the Afghan people is put into place, there can never be real success in Afghanistan.
The purpose of writing all of this isn't to minimize the accomplishments of this administration when it comes to keeping their timeline for moving troops out of Iraq. Nor is it to be a 'Debbie Downer.' It's my sincere hope - as it is all of ours - that Iraq stabilizes and we can fully remove our troops. And, of course, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans stand with the rest of America in wanting to see success in Afghanistan.
But, where the previous administration continually blew smoke and painted rosy pictures regarding the wars, this President must deal honestly with the American people. Only by doing so - by being straight about the challenges we still face - can the American people be prepared for the tough road ahead.
In 2007, CNA Corporation wrote, "climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states -- the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism." In 2010, the Pentagon followed suit, writing in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that global warming impacts and disasters will "act as an accelerant of instability or conflict." In fact, the Pentagon has already started war-gaming climate change, to prepare for the effect it will have on our commitments around the world if that instability comes to pass.
Now, this summer, we are seeing the tip of the (quickly melting) iceberg of what's to come, with the flooding in Pakistan. The catastrophic floods that hit the country this year have killed more than 1,500 people, left 4 million homeless, millions more displaced, and left one-fifth of the country under water. As organizations begin to set up aide efforts, the threat of terrorists groups capitalizing on the disaster for recruitment purposes increases, potentially putting America's mission in Afghanistan in peril.
According to Reuters, "Islamist charities, some with suspected ties to militants, stepped in... to provide aid for Pakistanis hit by the worst flooding in memory, piling pressure on a government criticized for its response to the disaster."
That's right. As thousands of people flee Pakistan's most populist areas because of the flooding, terrorists could be stepping in where the government has not -- winning chits with the public that they could cash in at a later date.
Think terrorists can't pretend to be nice people when it suits them? Look no further than the Palestinian territories, where for years, Hamas has taken care of many social services, and provided for the families of suicide bombers and other terrorists. The result? Hamas won open elections in the territories, and now controls Gaza.
So, yes, that's happening right there in Pakistan. Reports CNN, "An official with Falah-e-Insaniyat, a group widely believed to be the charity wing of a Pakistani terrorist group, said Shah, the USAID administrator, visited a camp the group was running. Kuaateeb Ullah, Falah-e-Insaniyat's leader in Sukkur, said the charity is running five camps in the Sindhi city and providing food and medicine to 3,500 flood survivors. He told CNN that Jumaat Ud Dawa, banned by the United Nations and the Pakistani government as a terrorist organization, was helping fund the relief missions."
Not a good development in a country where the US is already seen as the enemy by every 6 out of 10 people.
Now, imagine global climate change hitting places like Pakistan again and again and again. Floods in some regions. Abnormally hot temperatures in others, killing vegetation and spreading disease. General misery among the people. A perfect place for al Qaeda and groups connected to it to step in and help, winning sympathy -- if not outright converts. At a time when we need Pakistan to put the squeeze on al Qaeda, the terrorist group could easily be gaining breathing room.
Further, the potential for regional conflict expands greatly. What if Pakistanis have to move further and further towards India, a country with an already itchy red-button finger? Or if Bangladeshis do? It's a nuclear powder keg that is in our own national security interest to contain. That means an even greater commitment of troops to the region, just to try to keep the peace.
Yes, we were warned. At VoteVets.org, those of us who served in Iraq and Afghanistan joined the fight, running ad after ad after ad supporting a Clean Energy Climate Change plan -- one that gets serious about reversing global climate change. The forces of the status quo (read: "Big Oil") won the most recent battle, by successfully delaying consideration of the bill in the Senate.
Unfortunately, for them and for us, no amount of campaign cash and lobbying will stop the coming humanitarian and national security catastrophe we're getting a glimpse of this summer.
The question now is: Do Washington politicians even give a damn?
The open disdain and personal ridicule of the President and his advisors by General Stanley McChrystal and his subordinates in the new issue of Rolling Stone leaves only two acceptable options: Either General McChrystal resigns or is fired.
If he has any honor, he'll step down.
I know something about this. In 2006, I worked with two Generals, appearing in national television ads critical of President Bush and his strategy in Iraq. Or, should I say, retired Generals. Major Generals Paul D. Eaton and John Batiste each made the painful decision to leave the military they loved, so they could speak out. To that point, they had held their tongues.
Why?
Because the order and efficacy of our Armed Forces falls apart without respect for the chain of command. Whether it's a grunt respecting his company commander, or a General respecting the Commander in Chief, every single thing is predicated on the integrity of the chain of command. As soon as someone - especially someone as high up as General McChrystal - violates that respect, every single person under him begins to not only question the orders they've been given from above, but is given the signal that it's OK to openly disagree or mock his or her superior.
And, violate that respect General McChystal and his subordinates have. Among other things, the Rolling Stone story reports first-hand that:
* McChrystal was disappointed with his first meeting with the President, and that he feels the President is uncomfortable and intimidated with military brass.
* McChrystal's aid calls National Security Advisor James Jones a "clown."
* Another aide says of envoy Richard Holbrooke, "The Boss [McChrystal] says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
* Bolstering that, McChrystal himself, receiving an email from Holbrooke says, "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it."
* On Vice President Biden, who disagreed with the General's strategy in Afghanistan, McChrystal says while laughing, "Are you asking me about Vice President Biden? Who's that?"
* An aide, mirroring his boss, adds, "Biden? Did you say Bite me?"
Anyone of lower rank would be immediately dismissed if he or she said of their superiors what General McChrystal said, or what he allowed members of his team to say.
This, of course, isn't the first time that the General has been in trouble. Following a very public campaign for his preferred strategy in Afghanistan, which included a 60 Minutes interview that challenged the President, McChrystal landed in some hot water with the President, and was told to cool it. Frankly, McChrystal got off easy.
When General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress about his opinion on the force levels needed to invade Iraq, countering the strategy laid out by President Bush and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was forced into retirement. Shinseki, unlike McChrystal, was asked his opinion, under oath, in front of Congress. There's a difference between that professional conversation, and personal attacks on your superiors. Shinseki didn't lead a public campaign to air his views, either. At any rate, McChrystal was given a second shot, where Shinseki was not.
Whether he continued his insubordination purposely, or stupidly and unintentionally, isn't an issue. The issue, here, is that it happened. Again.
I cannot fault McChrystal for believing in his strategy. That's what you want out of a General - someone who gives the President strong advice, and believes what he says. But, what cannot be allowed to stand is when he believes in his strategy more than the command structure and order of the Armed Forces, and his duty to uphold it.
It's clear, now, that General McChrystal is unable or unwilling to work within the chain of command, and set an example for all those who serve under him. That is why I say, if he has any honor, he'll offer up his resignation. And, if he doesn't, the President must fire him.
As the immigration debate once again heats up, and the President prepares to meet with Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsay Graham on the issue today, one perspective that is often missing is that of how this plays into the strength of our military.
At first blush, sure, it seems a pretty big stretch to say that immigration reform will mean anything when it comes to our ability to meet our military commitments around the world now, and in the future, but it's true. And, that's why many veterans will stand with faith, immigrant, labor leaders and others on March 21 at the March For America, pushing for Immigration Reform.
By offering a path to citizenship for the many undocumented immigrants that are in our country right now, we are giving them a path to come out of the shadows, and become more active in American life - including military service.
We don't know exactly how many potential troops we're robbing our military of, as it fights dangerous enemies around the world, by continuing an immigration policy that leads far too many undocumented immigrants to stay in the shadows. What we do know, however, is that the current system keeps many of them from the benefits military service offers in terms of education, a living wage, health care, and pensions, which many would find generous enough to consider service. According to Senator Dick Durbin, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants could become recruits.
As we're fighting two wars and reminded that natural disasters like the one in Haiti also require our military, the overextension of our forces is quite apparent. Those in our Army and Marines, doing multiple tours with little rest, have led to a military that is stretched to the breaking point.
By opening up the path to citizenship, and adding tens of thousands of new service members, those currently in our Armed Forces can get some much-needed relief. A young man from Oklahoma who is away from his wife and kids because of his fifth tour in Afghanistan might get rotated out and given a much needed rest on the home-front, if we allow immigrants to come out the shadows and serve.
We're not talking about just adding bodies, here, either. Throughout our nation's history, and in the wars we're fighting right now, immigrants have proven to be among the most able and patriotic service-members. In fact, one immigrant in the military once said, "I'm a Cuban refugee who came to this country when I was 10 years old and flunked the sixth grade because I couldn't speak English." That immigrant was Army Brigadier General Bernardo Negrete, who was a special operations officer with four tours of duty, before rising up to be one the few Hispanic Generals in American history.
I make all these points, first and foremost, because I love our military, and care about the people serving right now. I want the United States to continue to have the strongest military in the world. There are many other civilians out there, who care about those same issues, yet don't know where they come down on the immigration debate. For them, and for those who want to see our immigration laws reformed, the positive effect immigration reform will have on our military is far too important to ignore.
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.
Thirty-eight years ago today, a young veteran was invited to testify before a committee of Senators and silenced the talkative politicians by speaking about the human costs of war. He did so on behalf of thousands of compatriots who could not be there. He spoke with the power of one who had seen war up close. The Senators listened intently, for some of them had never worn the uniform of the soldier and none had served in the jungles of Vietnam.
Today, that young veteran is himself not only a distinguished Senator but also chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the very same committee he had addressed in 1971. And tomorrow, at a hearing before his committee, Senator John Kerry will be giving a new generation of young veterans a chance to share their views of war, specifically, the war in Afghanistan.
Yesterday, there was a big hubbub manufactured by the American Legion and Republicans surrounding the Department of Homeland Security finding that there is a possibility that returning veterans who were facing issues reintegrating into society could be recruiting targets for extremist groups.
The report makes no claim that veterans at large would seek out extremist groups, or would cause violence. It just makes the fairly logical conclusion that extremist groups who might be seeking to cause violence, but don't have the skills, may seek out those who do have military training in addition to the usual profile of the types of people they seek out.
Well, that was it. The uproar from the right was fast and harsh:
"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable." - Rep. John Boehner
"The department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation's immigration laws, and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla.
"You have a report from Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama, Department of Homeland Security, portraying standard, ordinary, everyday conservatives as posing a bigger threat to this country than al Qaeda terrorists or genuine enemies of this country like Kim Jong Il." - Rush Limbaugh
And, the American Legion chimed in with "outrage," especially that Timothy McVeigh was mentioned in the report.
"I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are." - David K. Rehbein, National Commander, The American Legion
Interestingly, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which pretty much always is tied at the hip to the Legion, disagreed.
"The report should have been worded differently, but it made no blanket accusation that every soldier was capable of being a traitor like Benedict Arnold, or every veteran could be a lone wolf, homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. It was just an assessment about possibilities that could take place," said Glen Gardener, National Commander of the VFW.
So why the rare schism between the Legion and VFW here? Because the VFW, in this case, is acting like a reality-based organization.
I hate to break it to Republicans, and to the Legion (which knows this, or should), but the military has been training servicemembers on the dangers of right wing extremist groups, and how they may target servicemembers and veterans, for years. That includes, yes, even under George W. Bush's Pentagon.
You can view Power Point presentations of these trainings here and here. (PowerPoint required)
For those who don't have PowerPoint, here's the gist of it. The 2d Battalion, 46th Infantry warns its members:
"Soldiers are prohibited from active participation in organizations which promote supremacist causes, attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, sex or national origin, advocate the use of force or violence, or otherwise attempt to deprive individuals of their civil rights."
Geesh, you'd think that the military thought there could be a problem with servicemembers being recruited by extremist groups which advocate violence, or something.
Another Army presentation lays out what it calls "Right Wing Ideology":
• America is in moral and religious peril
• Satanic forces are about to seize control of the world.
• Religions other than their own are false and not important.
• Anti-government
In a slide shortly thereafter, the Army presentation uses Timothy McVeigh - specifically - as someone who bought into this ideology and used his military training to cause harm to his nation and his people.
Oh my goodness, why does our Pentagon hate America and the military?!
The fact of the matter is, most military members and veterans - a vast majority - are good and decent people who only want to honor their nation. That's never going to change. What's also true is that extremist groups are always trying to infiltrate our ranks to get training, and if they cannot do that, they look for those out of the military who might be able to help them.
We who served in the military know it, which is why the military is constantly vigilant, and always training men and women to recognize extremists and keep away from them. The report from DHS says nothing new or different than what's been said by the Armed Forces for years, with not so much as a peep from the Republicans or American Legion. The only thing new and different here is the President.
This is a short diary, but wanted to highlight that our own Brian McGough led off Hardball last night, to discuss the amazing three-part investigation by Salon, into PTSD non-diagnoses.
VoteVets.org helped Salon with this story, and, of course, broke the previous story like this, when we revealed a damning email down at the VA Center in Temple, TX.
Brian McGough knows the pain of navigating from Department of Defense (DOD) medical care to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) care all too well.
In October 2003, Brian was wounded by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Mosul. After undergoing surgery to repair his open head wound, he spent several months recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Brian still battles the effects of both his injuries.
But Brian's battle wasn't over when he left the military.
The gaps in transitioning from DOD to VA care were so bad, the byzantine process so confusing, and the paperwork so heavy, that Brian had to spend three months on unemployment, while he waited to be fully transitioned, so he could receive benefits from the VA for his injuries, which made it impossible to work at the time.
Thankfully, Brian's doing better today, and is now the Legislative Director and Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org. As the group's point person on policy, Brian made sure that making a seamless transition from DOD to VA was one of our legislative priorities.
So when the White House called and asked VoteVets to be there today, to hear the President announce a huge initiative to bridge the transitioning gap from DOD to VA care, who do you think we gave the honors?
The announcement from the President that DOD and the VA will create a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for all those who serve our nation in uniform will change the way we treat our troops and veterans, for the better, permanently. By doing away with all the paper and moving to electronic records, all pertinent information will follow a servicemember through his or her service, to return, and then to transition to VA care and beyond. Not only does this mean fewer mistakes in diagnosis and treatment, but that a lot of the maze of bureaucracy and paperwork that kept Brian from getting the care and benefits he needed will disappear.
That, along with the President's support for advance funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and opening the department up to many vets who were previously shut out because of their incomes, will help ensure generations to come can get better care with fewer headaches.
And that's the point. Because, the truth is, this is bigger than me, bigger than Brian, and bigger than VoteVets.org. This is about the thousands upon thousands of veterans who are still struggling with this transition, and the millions of troops who will face this transition for many, many years to come.
Though today's announcement was an extremely positive deal, not every problem was fixed today, and we still have a lot of work to do. But, as long as the White House reaches out to us, we'll be there to work with them.
Got any stories about issues with the DOD/VA transition? Please share below. Reporters might want to hear from you!
For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new President get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.
There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this President not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.
Point One: The Military Can't Do It All
The President recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.
The President said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."
This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.
President Obama is expected to lay out his broader approach to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan this week, following a strategic review he ordered upon taking office. Whatever approach he takes, one critical piece must be an attempt to bring in more moderate elements of the Taliban.
"Wait, what?! That Taliban," you ask?
Yes. Let me explain. Violence continues to increase in Afghanistan, and the government there slowly loses control of areas that had previously been secured. Further, those areas that never were secured in the border region with Pakistan continue to be safe havens for al Qaeda. And so, a hard truth has become even more apparent - there is no military solution to Afghanistan, as there was no military solution in Iraq.
That isn't to say that military force isn't a component of a solution, as VoteVets.org's Vice Chair Brandon Friedman has argued on here before. Our military, and the militaries of our allies, are crucial in protecting infrastructure that we've helped build in Afghanistan, and providing security and stability in areas we need to be able to close in on al Qaeda.
But that can only be one ingredient, like eggs or flour are only one ingredient when baking a cake. Humanitarian aid, economic help, political negotiating, and diplomacy are the other elements that have to be present. Otherwise, you end up with a pile of burned flour, or a pre-9/11-like haven for al Qaeda, whichever the case may be.
And so, when it comes to stabilizing the region as much as possible, and denying al Qaeda free ground, bringing in a wide range of players is a good idea, as long as they're willing to make concessions to have a seat at the table. There is precedent here for this kind of tactic - whether it was Sinn Fein / IRA being brought into a power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, or the FMLN negotiating a truce in El Salvador's Civil War, and transforming itself from a bunch of guerrillas into a political party (which recently won the nation's elections). And, of course, there was the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, where former insurgents flipped against the group that called itself "al Qaeda in Iraq," and joined the government.
In Afghanistan, there's evidence that there could be elements of the Taliban who would sit down and enter into an agreement. They would be brought into the halls of government, and be given some kind of amnesty, while they would aid us in strangling al Qaeda.
Indeed it's an idea that seems to be gaining steam. In a March 7th interview with the New York Times, President Obama said while he didn't want to prejudge the strategic review, he was open to the idea, and felt General Petraeus was open to the idea as well. The very next day, General Petraeus expressed support for the idea at the Heritage Foundation, saying, "If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward."
"The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government," he added.
As if on cue, President Karzai of Afghanistan opened the doors to negotiations. "As I have called upon Mullah Omar Taliban leader many times, I call upon the others, Taliban members too, that they should come back to their country, rebuild their country, they are welcome," President Karzai said.
All the pieces are there for the President to propose this as a major part of his approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan; now he must do so. It would finally shift much of the burden off of our troops in the region, who have been asked to do so much with so little. And, along with reopening the dialogue with Iran and other regional players, it would give us the best shot at finally doing what we should have done when the previous President decided to take a five-plus-year detour in Iraq.
Christina Bellantoni, writing in the Washington Times today, details President Obama's first experiences writing letters of condolence to families of the fallen. According to the story, the President is taking the time to write each letter himself, signing it simply "Barack." As the President writes these letters, and feels the weight of Americans dying in war under his administration, he should also consider how the human cost of war has partially been hidden from the public, and reverse that policy.
Indeed, the Washington Post reports at the same time today, that Secretary Gates is reviewing the ban on any coverage of war dead coming home at Dover Air Force Base, and the incredible respect shown to the flag draped coffins. Presumably, when that review is done, it will be presented to the President, so he can make a decision.
As the Post notes, the ban is not something that's been around forever. In fact, it's a pretty recent policy, instituted for purely political reasons, with waivers given, also for purely political reasons. The ban was instituted just before the first Gulf War, by the first President Bush, worried that images of the dead coming home could affect support for the war, just as they had during Vietnam. And, as noted in the story, George W. Bush allowed images of a victim of the Pentagon 9/11 attacks to be shown, to stir up anger (as if we needed any more reason).
Of course, this isn't a cut and dry decision, nor should the ban be lifted without any kind of restrictions.
Concerns over privacy are legitimate, and the survivors of our fallen service members should be respected. For instance, if newspapers are allowed to print pictures of returning caskets, it's not proper to identify who is in each of them, without the consent of the families. They should be given time to grieve in their own way, and in their own time. However, showing unidentified flag-draped coffins coming into Dover (or any other ports of entry) is not an invasion of privacy, but is an unfortunate part of war that the public has a right to see.
Some in Congress have been working on this issue for a while. Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican who VoteVets.org has supported, has legislation that would reverse the policy, while keeping concerns about privacy in mind. With 'bi-partisanship' all the buzz in DC, you couldn't find someone who is more of a true conservative than Walter Jones. President Obama should work with the Congressman on his legislation, so that any reversal of the ban could be bipartisan and move through Congress, instead of by executive decision.
In the end, those of us who served swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Part of that Constitution is freedom of the press, to promote the ability of the public to have as much information as possible - even when that information is not comfortable for those decision-makers in power.
The return of our war dead certainly falls into that category. The policy should be changed.
Talk about fast. At 12 noon, the White House website flipped over from President Bush to President Obama. Of particular concern to me and all of the veterans with VoteVets.org was what the agenda was for veterans. On that, just one second after 12 noon, the new White House scored an A+.
Just before the inauguration, VoteVets.org polled the over 45,000 veterans and veteran families in its over 100,000 person email base for suggestions on what the new administration should tackle at the VA. Today, the White House website makes clear that the message was loud and clear.
The full memo VoteVets.org sent to the transition on our findings can be found here. The White House page on veterans can be found here. Notice similarities?
VoteVets.org Memo - Lack of easy access should be met with more VA hospitals and clinics and/or ability to get care elsewhere.
White House Page- Expand Vet Centers
VoteVets.org Memo - Prescriptions are often too expensive for many vets to afford; and Emergency services need to be covered.
White House Page - Fully fund the VA so it has all the resources it needs to serve the veterans who need it, when they need it.
VoteVets.org Memo - Advocates are needed.
White House Page - Hire additional claims workers, and improve training and accountability so that VA benefit decisions are rated fairly and consistently.
VoteVets.org Memo - Streamline and make the disability process easier to understand.
White House Page - Fix the Benefits Bureaucracy
How refreshing to have an administration that hears veterans, listens to veterans, and plans to fight for veterans!
We'll see what happens the rest of the week with an Executive Order closing Guantanamo, banning torture practices, and setting a new course in Iraq. But, if the new White House page on veterans is any indication, we finally have a President who is listening to us.
Back when Robert Gates was named the Secretary of Defense, I expressed cynicism, noting that the change from Rumsfeld to Gates meant little in the larger scheme of things, unless President Bush changed his view of the world and the role of our military in it. And, indeed, the president did not change his view, or his playbook, so on the larger picture, the change to Gates meant nothing.
At the same time, where he was free to change things, Gates was effective and gained the respect and confidence of the uniformed military. Gates wasn't there for Abu Ghraib or Walter Reed or armor shortages, but he came in during the aftermath and was tasked with not just cleaning up the mess, but making sure those critical errors were not allowed to happen again. Gates moved confidently and swiftly, unencumbered by any doctrinaire view from the president on these "smaller" issues, and proved himself a very adept administrator. It's for this reason that we went from six retired Generals calling for the Secretary of Defense to be fired, to none.
Now, with a new Commander in Chief with a very different view, Gates provides the perfect short-term bridge between the eras of pre-Iraq-redeployment and post-Iraq-redeployment. And, that seems to be what President-Elect Obama sees Gates as - a civil servant who does the job he's tasked with, and does it well. Politically, it also gives some cover to Obama from the right, to use one of George W. Bush's team to carry out a dramatic change in policy.
For those who worry that Gates will somehow drag President Obama to the right on Iraq, I think that fear is really unfounded. If the first question one must ask is, "Why is Obama picking Gates?" then the second question has to be "Why does Gates want to stay with Obama?"
It's not because Gates wants to preserve some neo-con view in the administration - after all, Gates is a Bush I guy, a moderate who sees more eye-to-eye with Brent Scowcroft (an opponent of the war) than Paul Wolfowitz. It's not to preserve the current course, because Gates is smart enough to know that with Hillary Clinton, James Jones, and Barack Obama, staying the course will never win out.
The only reasonable answer is that Gates clearly understands that there will be a new course for our military, that includes redeployment from Iraq, and wants to make it work. If he didn't, he had a very nice private sector life that he could have gone to.
There is little time to spare here, as has been made clear by the timelines for redeployment that the Iraqis are calling for. By keeping Gates, the Department of Defense is the one place in government that will be spared the pains of leadership transition. Gates won't have to "hit the ground running," because he's already running. And now - finally - with a new mission from the top, Gates is well positioned to help Barack Obama keep the promises he made during his campaign.
With Iraq's cabinet passing a security agreement that will dictate the future of the US role in Iraq, and Parliament being poised to pass it as well, the question now is not at what pace US troops should remove themselves from Iraq, but how to do it in a responsible way that keeps a number of powder kegs from exploding.
The answer comes down to one word - Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is as important for keeping Iraq stable as it is for making sure that US troops are not targets of attacks by insurgents, or caught in the crossfire of an explosion of sectarian violence, as we begin to pull back. And, there is no doubt that there are a number of tensions that could explode, if the US and the next administration does not engage in intense diplomacy not just within the borders of Iraq, but with regional players, as well.
Everything from an oil revenue sharing plan, to the governing of Kirkuk, to Sunni concerns about their own role in the new Iraq, to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and everything else in between could be subject to a small spark that sets of a chain reaction of powder kegs.
Only constant diplomatic and political attention can keep each of those things from blowing up. Diplomacy becomes even more intensely needed when you consider that the security pact includes a timeline for all US troops to be out of cities and towns by June, 2009. That is an extremely ambitious timeline by any standard.
However, there is some hope that just the promise of diplomacy is already playing a role, and can succeed under the Obama administration, if the President-Elect keeps his promise to engage in talks. From today's New York Times:
Several political analysts suggested that Iranian opposition to the pact had softened because of the American presidential election victory of Senator Barack Obama. He has suggested a more diplomatic approach to Tehran and has described a withdrawal timetable from Iraq faster even than the one laid out in the security agreement, though recently he has qualified that stance.
"If George Bush's presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned," said Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Having this administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians."
Iranians pulling back their opposition gave flexibility to Iraqi Shiite Cleric Ali al-Sistani to support the deal, which was key to it moving ahead. So, we can see what Barack Obama said during the campaign already showing promise.
Now, it will be up to President Obama to follow-up on the promise of diplomacy to get Iraqi and regional players to all work towards their mutual interest. This includes not just the Iranians, and Shiite leaders, but the Sunni minority and their allies in the Syrian government, which still opposes the deal, as well as the Kurds and Turkey, to settle their tensions, including the future of Kirkuk.
It's a tall order, even if we were talking about a President already in office. With less than six months after he takes office until US troops are expected to be removed from cities and towns in Iraq, President Obama will have absolutely no time to spare.
Back in April, the seeds of the smear campaign against Senator Obama were being planted. What now has become "palling around with terrorists" began in April, when John McCain and his campaign started dropping the talking points that Barack Obama was the choice of Hamas, as if Obama had sought that statement of support.
In response to reporters' questions as to whether McCain stood by a fundraising letter which made the point, McCain said, "All I can tell you... is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."
Well, yes, al Qaeda wasn't far behind. Today, they expressed a preference for Senator McCain. To revise what Senator McCain said above, "If Senator McCain is favored by al Qaeda, I think people can make judgments accordingly..."
In a message on an al Qaeda website, terrorists wrote of continuing the war in Iraq, "This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
There's no question that continuing the war in Iraq would prolong the strain that our military is facing, trying to fight a two-front war, and that continuing in Iraq saps resources in the fight against al Qaeda, where they are based - the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would be much worse off if the U.S. shifted priority from Iraq to going on the offense in Afghanistan, as Senator Obama has proposed.
But there's something else at play, here. The war in Iraq, as well as saber rattling against Iran by McCain and those who surround him, like Joe Lieberman, are an excellent recruiting tool for al Qaeda. That's not a new notion. The International Institute for Strategic Studies reported back in 2004 that the war in Iraq was pretty helpful to al Qaeda's efforts to gain new recruits, as it sought to rebuild its strength after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
Of course, this "endorsement" shouldn't itself influence voters, as Hamas' statement on Obama shouldn't. The American people shouldn't base their votes on the basis of what maniacs say.
But it once again underscores the question of who would be stronger in the fight against al Qaeda, which candidate is proposing a stronger plan to go after those who attacked us on 9/11, and which is for continuing the policy that has allowed al Qaeda to gain recruits and regain strength.
In endorsing Barack Obama this weekend, Colin Powell brought up a photo of the tombstone of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, being held by his grieving mother (posted below in an eloquent diary). Powell brought it up to make the point that Muslim-Americans are as American as anyone else, and it is wrong that the Republican party allows the whisper campaign to continue, that Barack Obama is somehow a Muslim.
Indeed, while John McCain has corrected a woman who directly told him that Obama was "an Arab," the campaign has also given those who believe Obama is a "secret Muslim" a wink and a nod, by continually using phrases like "he doesn't see America like the rest of us," and tying him to "terrorists." It is, incidentally, the same sentiment promoted by Benjamin Netanyahu in his campaign against Yitzhak Rabin, which Leah Rabin later blamed for her husband's assassination.
Colin Powell, though, might be more on point with his observation than he knew.
One of things you quickly learn when you're sent to Iraq or Afghanistan is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in those nations are peace loving people, who just want to be able to raise their families in a decent environment. Essentially, their overall hopes and dreams are not much different than ours. Most of them actually have fond views of America and the west, and are constantly curious about American culture. To the extent there are any anti-American sentiments in Iraq, it's that Iraqis want this war to end, and want to get back to a stable life. But, it's not right to say that most Muslims are "anti-America."
That's what's so dangerous about the kind of campaign Republicans are running, and frankly have been running even before Barack Obama. When FOX News continually uses terms like "Islamo-facism," it not so subtly conflates the entire religion of Islam with the select crackpots around the world who use their religion as an excuse to promote despicable acts. But, those terrorists are not representative of Islam, or Islamofacists, any more than someone who bombs an abortion clinic over here is representative of Christianity, or a "Christoterrorist."
To then take someone who has a funny sounding name, and use a flimsy link to a "washed up terrorist" to stoke fears that he might be a Muslim forces the issue down the slippery slope at blazing speed. The Genie of hate is tough to put back in the bottle. No longer does someone need to be an actual Muslim to stoke some people into a frenzy, all it takes is that they're somehow "different" to scare people into thinking someone has secret "anti-America Muslim tendencies."
Think about that on the macro scale, not just in terms of Obama, who is a Christian. Think about how neocons can use a sentiment like that as justification for war against pretty much anyone they want to wage war on - Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, atheist, etc. "Different" is the only thing they need to whip fear up into a lather. And, if I needed to remind anyone, that's when American troops deploy to war, and many don't come home.
That's the path that John McCain has condoned by allowing innuendo to be pushed around the radical right, to abuse the feelings of fear that many Americans feel at this uncertain time. It's not just dishonest, it's dangerous.
And, that's why Colin Powell breaching this issue, from a position of strength and legitimacy, was so important this Sunday. We can only hope that his strong words shake even more reasonable Republicans from their electoral daze, and cause them to speak up and object to the damage the far-right smear campaign is doing to America.
If reports are true that Colin Powell will endorse Senator Obama this weekend on Meet the Press, it may be a huge moment that gives a further shot of credibility into the arm of the Obama campaign.
I know that many progressives are upset with the role Powell played leading up to the war in Iraq. And, there's no doubt that Powell showed poor judgment in believing the fudged intelligence presented to him, which he then presented to the United Nations. At the same time, however, we do have evidence that Powell tried behind the scenes to change things and even prevent going to war. In this, he can be a powerful advocate for Obama, noting that for all the talk of lack of experience, Barack Obama was right on the Iraq war, and showed better judgment than the entire Bush administration, himself included.
Powell has been open about some of his own culpability, for presenting bad information to the UN, and accepts the fact that it will be a stain on his record, telling a reporter, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
I'm not excusing Colin Powell for doing what he did. But, at the same time, him being one of the few who was in the White House during that time puts him in a unique position - to say he's been there and seen what happens when intelligence is no good and twisted, when we go into a war for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way, and that he's confident that Barack Obama is the guy to not only fix those mistakes, but to not repeat them.
For example, even if he doesn't bring it up on Meet the Press, we know through Bob Woodward's accounting of the lead-up to the war that Powell tried to dissuade the President from going to war, and battled it out with Donald Rumsfeld about the size of the force we planned to send in once the decision was made; arguing for a larger force that would lead to fewer SNAFUs during the invasion, and a better chance at keeping control of the country, post-invasion.
We know that he warned the President, to no avail, of the Pottery Barn rule - You Break It, You Own It - and tried to sound the siren that the occupation would not be easy, and that there was no clear exit plan. We know that Powell duked it out over the use of torture with members of the administration, and knew how it would reduce our standing in the world, and only encourage our enemies to torture those troops of ours that they captured.
In short, while we may criticize Powell for not resigning from the administration if he had strong objections to the war, it's clear that he did fight a lot behind the scenes, and he can imply (if not explicitly say) that he would have rather had Barack Obama as President during those months, so we never would have gone to war with Iraq to begin with.
Further, Powell can add a strong voice to some key points that Obama has been making, moving ahead. First and foremost, Powell was one of five former Secretaries of State who said we should open up lines of communication with our enemies, without preconditions, to step up the diplomatic efforts to settle the ongoing strife in the Middle East.
Second, Powell has made clear that talking to Iran and Syria is an urgent component to ending this war in the right and responsible way. Reported The Times of London, "Powell believes that a reduction in US forces will have to be accompanied by talks with Syria and Iran. "You have to talk to the people you dislike most in this dangerous world."
And, of course, all of this doesn't even account for the fact that this is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - a man who loves America and loves America's military. For all the smears being hurled about "palling around with terrorists" and "white flag of retreat," nothing can counter that like a Republican former 4-star coming out and saying "This guy loves America as much as me."
Absolutely disgusting. According to a new report from ABC, thanks to the Patriot Act, the government has been listening into phone calls from troops in the middle east, and passing clips of them around the office. Not just that, but the clips are of private moments between troops and their wives and girlfriends.
Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer.
"Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News.
Faulk said he joined in to listen, and talk about it during breaks in Back Hall's "smoke pit," but ended up feeling badly about his actions.
Oh, he felt badly? How about I start listening into the phone calls of NSA staff, and posting the best stuff on blogs, so we can all have a laugh.
Asked for comment about the ABC News report and accounts of intimate and private phone calls of military officers being passed around, a US intelligence official said "all employees of the US government" should expect that their telephone conversations could be monitored as part of an effort to safeguard security and "information assurance."
"They certainly didn't consent to having interceptions of their telephone sex conversations being passed around like some type of fraternity game," said Jonathon Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who has testified before Congress on the country's warrantless surveillance program.
Turley is right, and frankly, the response to ABC from the intelligence official is a disgrace.
Let me tell you something about being in a warzone, for those reading who haven't been. It's grueling, it's mentally taxing, it's hot, you see men blown up and losing limbs. For many, the one bit of calm they have is a brief moment when they thought of their wives or girlfriends back home, who they haven't seen for months.
But it was also agonizing. They could see them in their heads, but they couldn't touch them or smell them.
The best troops have is a brief telephone call sometimes. And, yes, it was as close to intimate as they can get. A tiny bit of good amidst the hell of war.
For the government to think that it was acceptable to listen in and pass around troops' most intimate moments, like some high-tech peeping toms, some satellite-powered voyeurs, is one of the greatest insults I can think of to those men and women in uniform sacrificing everything they have for their nation.
It's good that Senator Jay Rockefeller has started an investigation into this. I sincerely hope that he does not stop until everyone who let this happen is accounted for, and their heads roll. And I hope Republicans, who used to be all about limited government, and who swore to uphold our Constitution and Constitutional rights wake up and realize what's happening.
Our troops deserve a lot better from the government they're fighting for.
When Senators Barack Obama and John McCain debate Foreign Policy tonight, we'll be looking for answers on five key points, and will heavily judge the debate on those points.
1) Will the candidates (and the moderator) note the difference between "tactical" success of the surge, versus the overall strategic goal of the surge, and whether that was a success?
There has been a lot of talk about the "success" of the surge, from both John McCain and Barack Obama. For those of us who served, this talk leaves out a very key, military point. In any military operation, there is tactical success, and then there is strategic success. To the degree that the surge has been a success, it has been tactical.
Our troops have performed incredibly - taking control of any area they are ordered to take control of, and have helped tamp down violence in those areas (combined with other factors like the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda in Iraq). However, the strategic goal of the surge, as stated by President Bush, was to bring about political reconciliation in Iraq. At this point, that goal is far from being achieved, as detailed in this report.
It is simply wrong to say that the surge has been an overall success - both tactical and strategic. Will the participants in the debate give America some "straight talk" about the surge?
2) Will the candidates be challenged on the deteriorating situation with Pakistan? Will Obama hold to his position that we must act to strike terrorists officially inside Pakistan's borders, and will McCain hold to his view that Obama is wrong to strike in the ungoverned parts of Pakistan without the expressed consent from Islamabad?
By all measures, the security situation in Afghanistan is now a crisis, with an enemy there that has gained strength and confidence, as our troops are committed to the war in Iraq. Terrorists are even committing acts of violence in Kabul, which to this point had been relatively secure.
A key problem is that terrorists have found safe haven in the ungoverned region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the United States has tried to chase down these terrorists, into what is technically Pakistan, they have faced fire from our supposed ally.
During the primaries, Senator Obama made clear that if the United States had actionable intelligence that al Qaeda leaders were in Pakistan's borders, and Islamabad was unwilling or unable to act on it, we would. Senator McCain ripped Senator Obama for this position, and said that he would not perform operations in a "sovereign country" without their permission or cooperation.
Given developments since the primary, has either candidate changed their position, and why?
3) Will the candidates speak about our inability to take care of our current military commitments, let alone new ones?
Just this week, Secretary Robert Gates admitted that we do not have the necessary forces to boost our numbers in Afghanistan until the Spring, meaning we cannot meet the request of the NATO Commander in the region.
Clearly, our military has been stretched too thin. Unfortunately, those who would do us harm will not wait to create new hot-spots until we can effectively deal with them.
Will the candidates clearly answer how they will ease the strain on the military, allowing us to wage an effective war in Afghanistan, and have the necessary forces to respond to future emergencies?
Additionally, does Senator McCain believe that we can keep forces engaged in Iraq, send necessary forces to Afghanistan, and engage in any future simultaneous conflicts without a military draft? For example, if we begin a military conflict with Iran or Russia, can we fight a three-front war without a draft?
4) Will the candidates lay out what steps short of military action they would take to prevent a nuclear Iran?
Both candidates have made clear that a military option against Iran is not "off the table," as the world community tries to keep the regime from developing nuclear weapons. However, will the candidates be challenged on what steps they would take to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, to prevent the need for a military option? War veterans, especially, are more interested in ways to avoid war than reasons to get into a new war, and the candidates must convince us that they are serious about avoiding military conflict.
Specifically, Senator Obama has been clear about his desire to open diplomatic communication with Iran (something that was recently undertaken by Secretary Rice. Talking to Iran is something also endorsed by five former Secretaries of State: Powell, Albright, Christopher, Baker, and Kissinger. Senator McCain has characterized this as direct talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and mocked the idea.
Even beyond diplomacy, what steps would the candidates take to deter a nuclear Iran, so that the military option does not even need to become a serious consideration?
Additionally, do the candidates agree that a strike on Iran puts our forces in Iraq at risk from a counter-attack by the Mahdi Army, and Israel at risk to counter-attacks from Hezbollah? How would they prepare for that, if military action against Iran is taken?
5) Given news that Prime Minister Maliki has hinted that he prefers a timeline that removes troops by 2010, but was pressured to accept a 2011 timeline due to U.S. political considerations, will the candidates consider moving a timeline to exit Iraq back to 2010, or do they consider that unrealistic?
Also this week, the Iraqi government let it be known that they pushed back a timeline for withdrawal of troops, due to pressure from the Bush administration, apparently due to U.S. political considerations.
War veterans would be extremely troubled if troops were stuck in Iraq for a whole extra year, due not to Iraqi requests, or the situation on the ground, but due to considerations in the Presidential Race. Another year in Iraq would mean another year of troops killed or wounded in action; another year that we could not send enough troops to Afghanistan.
Given that the Iraqis believe we can leave a year earlier than has been set by the Bush administration, would the candidates consider working with Iraqis to move the timeline back to 2010, from 2011? Further, if Maliki's charges are true, would Senator McCain urge the Bush administration to move a timeline for redeployment back to the Iraqi request, and keep the Senator's political aspirations out of the equation?
So, because there's a financial crisis, Senator McCain cannot take 90 minutes to address how he will face challenges around the world, including how and when he will send American troops to fight, and possibly die.
Wow. Troops would sure love that luxury.
Unfortunately, though, insurgents in Iraq don't stop shooting at us, or setting IEDs, because our Commander in Chief needs a breather to figure out Wall Street.
Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region don't send our troops notes that read, "Hey, I hear you guys are tied up with Wall Street. Your President needs to concentrate on other things, so we'll give you a break. So, to make things easier on you, here's our coordinates."
Nor do our troops get a few days to figure out how to hold onto an area we've secured, if there's an unexpected attack. Sometimes we need to deal with multiple flare-ups at once in any warzone. We'd sure love a time-out, but sadly, the world isn't such a nice place that it gives us that kind of pity.
When you're Commander in Chief, I don't think there'd be a worse signal to send to our troops in harm's way than to say, "Hey, hold on guys. I know you're getting killed over there, but I have to get a time-out here to deal with Wall Street."
If troops need to multi-task without a break, is it so wrong that we demand that a potential President-in-waiting prove that he can manage a financial crisis, and still address crises around the world for 90 minutes? And, if a potential President-to-be can't manage that, is it wrong to think that maybe he ought not just suspend a debate and the campaign, but move aside and get out of the race?
Last week's Republican convention sure made every superficial effort to come off as pro-Troop and pro-Veteran. And, of course, the media ate it up, not challenging a single thing. But to those of us who did serve, it was offense after offense after offense. Let's count the ways:
McCain Didn't Mention Veterans' Care: Maybe it's because he has a terrible record, but not once in John McCain's speech did he talk about taking care of those who served their nation in the military. With exploding rates of PTSD, suicide, homelessness among veterans. With ridiculous wait times for veterans seeking care, and a VA that every major vets group says is woefully underfunded. With administrators dumping vets out of the veterans care system by diagnosing them with a lesser mental injury than they have. Not. A. Single. Word. And, with the shame of...
Walter Reed: What a slap in the face. The first photo that John McCain stood in front of was Walter Reed. Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. Chalk it up to someone in the campaign not knowing the difference between the two, but what I find even more offensive is this: At some point John McCain asked his campaign what was going to be on the screen behind him. And someone told him the first picture would be Walter Reed Army Medical Center. John McCain didn't object - even though he voted against closing tax loopholes to help fund military hospitals like Walter Reed. But that wasn't the only bit of fake imagery....
"Phony Soldiers": For the amount that Rush Limbaugh likes to rant on "phony soldiers," there was a big silence and others from the mainstream media on the fact that the McCain campaign used stock footage of actors pretending to be soldiers in a video, intended to show how pro-military McCain is. It's actually kind of fitting - phony soldiers to promote a phony record on military and veterans' issues.
Speaking of phony: Remember that faux-outrage from the McCain campaign when General Wesley Clark dared to point out that being a POW isn't a qualification for being Commander in Chief? Boy, the McCain campaign wouldn't let up on that. Where were they when Fred Thompson said the same exact thing?
Real outrage: But, there were some things to be angry about. First, Sarah Palin repeatedly saying that her son was deploying for Iraq on September 11. First, not only is this not exactly true, but if she sincerely believed it to be true, she would be knowingly violating Operational Security (OPSEC), which says you should never tell the enemy when people and units are going to be landing in Iraq. Thankfully, Palin was fudging the truth, and not endangering the troops. So, she either knew she wasn't telling the truth, or she thought she was and thought violating OPSEC was worth the political points. Second, there's the fact that right after the Republican convention, the party produced a bunch of flags that they stole from the Democratic convention in Denver, in an attempt to "prove" the Democrats were throwing out the flag. In fact, workers in Denver were collecting all the flags left at Invesco Field, to send to community events around the country, where other patriotic Americans might want to wave the flag. So, to promote a complete fabrication, Republicans stole flags that some five-year old kid might have wanted to wave on Main Street. Stay classy...
It's things like this that caused those troops deployed to donate to Obama by a 6-1 ratio.
Though many in the media may lap up the lies, the distortions, and fake representations, troops certainly don't. We know the difference between fantasy and reality.
And that brings me to the last point. Speaker after speaker told the convention that the "surge worked" and we were on our way to "victory."
Except not so much. Bob Woodward, in his new book, explains what those of us in the military always knew - commanders on the ground were against the surge, and knew it would not work strategically. And, in fact, it hasn't worked in stabilizing Iraq's internal political problems, hasn't aided our global strategy, or helped strengthen our military.
But, as the President explained to General Abizaid, and others, success wasn't the point of the surge - the APPEARANCE of success was the purpose. Quoting Woodward's finding, "A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said [to Abizaid]."
In short, Bush knew that since less than one-percent of America had served in the wars, and most commentators were ignorant about what constitutes true military and strategic success, a reduction of violence could be sold as "success," even if it was not.
And that, perhaps, was the biggest insult to those of us in the military, out of many, coming from the Republican National Convention.
When Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, I found it a little disturbing that she told the public that her oldest son, Track, would be deploying to Iraq on September 11. Generally, disclosing the date of deployment is against Operational Security (OPSEC) and illegal.
Calling around to a couple of Public Affairs Officers (PAO) who would be handling the flow of information about Track and his unit, VoteVets.org found out that, first, Track is not deploying on September 11. He may be part of a deployment ceremony that day, before going to Kuwait, though one Public Affairs Officer said that any details of the upcoming ceremony hadn't been made public yet by the military.
Governor Palin may have spilled the beans on that one, while showing she doesn't know the difference between a soldier deploying to Iraq vs. one preparing to deploy to Iraq. And while not illegal, if she really did believe that's when he's deploying to Iraq, then she didn't know enough to keep quiet about that to keep from violating OPSEC - something a potential Commander in Chief should know.
But, more disturbing, and definitely in violation of security, are an explosion of stories that say specifically where in Iraq Track is deploying to, which have been dutifully eaten up by right wing websites, and reprinted. I will not reprint it here, because I would only be compounding the issue. But, unfortunately, it is very easy to find on the web at this point.
It is simply impossible that any reporter could figure this out on their own. Just by knowing Track's name and the date he is heading to Kuwait, one could not figure out specifically where Track and his company would be going in Iraq. There's a reason it's impossible to figure that out - because the military doesn't want that information out there. It only serves to aid the enemy to know where are troops are moving.
Did the Pentagon release that information to the press?
No, according to another PAO that VoteVets.org talked with. In fact, this PAO said, the military was actively trying to quash this story, and keep reporters from repeating all these details, because it was a clear OPSEC violation. The PAO was adamant that the military has no idea how these details got out there and doesn't want them out there.
So where is this information coming from, if not the military? Certainly not the Obama campaign, which would not gain anything by promoting Track's service. The only people who I can think of would be those in the McCain-Palin campaign.
If the McCain-Palin campaign has disclosed details about Track's company's movements to gain stories in the press about it, they will have put many American lives in danger - not the least of which would be Track's.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin need to immediately find out if someone in the campaign violated OPSEC by giving a reporter these details, and if they did, the campaign needs to find out where the source got this information from. Whoever that is, is in it deep.
I'm going to be very blunt, here. I wish Senator McCain a very long and happy life. But, at age 72 with a history of cancer, John McCain may not live through his first term, if elected. That would make Sarah Palin our Commander in Chief. I, and other vets and troops, have about 60 days to determine if she'll grow to be ready.
She's not ready now -- not based on the complete blank resume on global strategic issues and veterans issues. To be fair, Barack Obama wasn't ready to be Commander in Chief when he became Senator in 2005.
But, over the course of the last few years, and the last year-and-a-half in particular, I've been able to soundly judge Senator Obama, and watch him grow into a readied potential Commander in Chief. In the Senate, serving on the Foreign Affairs committee, he's tackled some of the major issues of our time, asking probing and highly informed questions of military leaders and diplomatic leaders.
I've been able to watch his thought process in action, and have seen him been proven right on Iraq, right on Afghanistan, right on talking to Iran, and right on the war on terror. He's shown an incredible ability to think in much larger strategic terms than this president, to the point that I'm supremely confident he is ready to lead our Armed Forces.
Sarah Palin? God only knows.
I've never heard her even address any of those issues, or the veterans issues like the GI Bill, VA Funding, and care for those vets with PTSD, or those who are homeless. Senator Obama has shown an acute understanding of and deep record on each of those issues - cosponsoring the GI Bill, always supporting greater VA funding, backing the Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment (unlike McCain) and writing the Homes for Our Heroes Act, which would take on veterans homelessness.
I have to assume with no real history of judgment of her own on war, Palin will back John McCain's dismal judgment on military and veterans matters - endless war in Iraq, inability or unwillingness to get Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, opposing education benefits and greater VA funding, continued overextension of our military, and a shoot-first/think-later mentality.
Maybe Palin could one day be someone who has the judgment and experience that would make me feel comfortable with her leading our Armed Forces. But not now. Not after just 60 days thinking about those issues, and even then, just toting the party line. What's this say about McCain's judgment - to put political PR above sound judgment when it comes to naming a potential, if not very possible, Commander in Chief? What's it say about his judgment vs. Barack Obama, who faced with the same question, answered, "Joe Biden."
In times like these, with the stakes so high, and the decent chance that McCain might not live long into his first term, I can think of no scarier thought as a proud war veteran than someone with such an empty resume holding in her hands the lives of my buddies still in the service.
Why is John McCain treating our national security, literally, as a joke?
This week, Senator John McCain made clear that you shouldn't try to combat the rising cost of gas by checking your car's tire pressure, so your car gets more per gallon (something everyone from Al Gore to President Bush, from Joe Lieberman to Barack Obama, from NASCAR to environmental groups say you should do). He's even mocking the idea by handing out "joke" tire pressure gauges, and has a new childish web video out making a joke out of it.
But this is no joke.
In fact, it's so serious that I'd ask everyone to buy tire pressure gauges - available at sites like this - because ultimately this is about our national security and our troops. Maybe John McCain wants to mock those things, but I sure don't.
Using less Middle East puts us in a stronger position to demand security in the region and fight terrorist organizations which often get much of their funding through oil profits. Using less Middle East oil could also keep us out of future wars, and save the lives of those Americans serving in uniform.
I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question:
What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?
It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy.
Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth.
"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.
Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications.
The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy. Very few candidates for the presidency have had the experience in life that prepares them for that role. In fact, McCain said it himself in 2003, that some of our best Commanders in Chief had no military experience at all.
That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points.
The reporter from ABC News didn't fall for it, and did his job. But he didn't get an answer. Maybe now, reporters will stuff their guts back in their bodies and keep asking McCain this legit question -- a question I get a version of all the time from the same reporters.
It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer.
Sometimes it's just flat-out funny to watch the Bush administration spin when it comes to military operations. The New York Times reported this weekend that the U.S. could see a surge of troops into Afghanistan. Surely, groups like VoteVets.org have to be happy with that, right? I mean, since our inception in 2006, we've put a top priority on taking Afghanistan more seriously.
Except, this isn't a "surge," it's caulk. You know, the stuff you use to fill the gaps.
Here's why. Our NATO allies are slowly pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving forces short. Even as the Bush administration begged them to send more troops, our allies promised a couple of thousand, on a very short term basis. That's a heck of a lot less than the 7,000 we were asking for. Not only that, but those who did promise more troops are planning to pull out completely later this year, or early next year.
So, we're just making up the shortfall. And yet, the administration seems to be pushing the line that the US, after the Afghanistan surge, will have the highest number of US forces there - 40,000 - since the initial invasion. Of course it will represent the highest number of US Troops - it has to, now that our allies are bailing. In reality, it's just a wash.
The fact of the matter is that until we begin to take our global alliances seriously again, until we make it politically popular for world leaders to work with the US again, we'll continue to bleed aid from foreign nations in our global commitments. It's not just Iraq, either (though that seems to be the main thing that's made the US so unpopular around the world). It's not making a serious commitment to combating global warming. It's a lack of commitment to human rights and the Geneva Conventions. It's beating other nations over the head saying, "You're either with us or against us," but using real diplomacy with our allies and foes, to convince them that our fight is their fight too.
To continue down that Bush course, as John McCain seems to want to do, means further alienation of our allies. That means they'll continue to leave our side. And that means that not just in Afghanistan, but any other security crisis down the road, we'll be on our own.
There's not enough caulk in our arsenal to handle that.
A shocking story got lost in the media frenzy on the Pennsylvania primary this weekend. The New York Times had an explosive report finding that most of the retired brass and senior experts that you see on television are merely reciting Pentagon talking points. A massive Pentagon PR effort, started years ago to ensure that the most senior retired military officials get the party line, is paying dividends. The airwaves are now flooded with men who have "retired General," "former Green Beret," and "Colonel (Ret.)" attached to their name telling you what the Pentagon wants you to hear.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon's dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called "information dominance." In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit "key influentials" -- movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities.
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration's neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
It's eerie how in unison the voices were. You can see that in the Times interactive feature, which lays out the evidence for their story.
Of course, not all the retired Generals marched in lockstep. General Anthony Zinni took to NBC to call for then Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. Major Generals Paul Eaton and John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld to step down, and, as many here know, appeared in ads from VoteVets.org, highly critical of the administration. And yet, after he came out to criticize the Pentagon, CBS fired Batiste as an analyst, rather than invite him on the air even more, to counter-balance the Pentagon spin machine.
I didn't bother watching the debate last night, because I knew what was coming. Each and every time we have our candidates in the same place at the same time, it's one big game of stupid. Flag pins? Tuzla? Who the hell cares? Distractions like this are what got us into Iraq in the first place - a media unwilling to do the tough reporting or ask the tough questions, and instead getting caught up in the emotion of the moment.
Yesterday a major new report was released by Rand Corporation. It found, according to USA Today:
Roughly one in five U.S. troops is suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an equal number have suffered brain injuries, a new study estimates.
Only about half of them have sought treatment...
Rand described this, rightfully, as a major health crisis among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Where was the question about that? You think that ABC could nix one question about pointless stupidity, and ask the candidates what they would do about this crisis. I know we veterans would have sure appreciated it.
The excuse from pundits stepping-up to defend ABC is that, well, we've had 20 debates and we've gone over all the issues, and people don't want to hear it anymore.
Oh really? I don't remember any debate where we talked seriously about when it is proper and not proper to deploy our military. Are we going to continue preemption and nation building? Is there any situation where that might be called for? I haven't heard that question asked in a debate.
Have we talked about the GI Bill in the debates? What other benefits for veterans would they increase or decrease, and by what amounts?
How do they propose, with the budget crunch, to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is fully-funded?
There are, literally, dozens of hours of debate that we have not had on troops' and veterans' issues alone, because no one wants to ask the questions. ABC had a chance to, last night, in what could be the final Democratic debate. They could have run the gamut of issues that haven't been talked about in any debate, but are critically important to Pennsylvania and the nation.
Instead, we're stuck with an hour on pointless games, and no answers. Thanks a lot.
Tomorrow is D Day for our own Ashwin Madia in Minnesota's 3rd CD. He has a commanding lead in delegates in tomorrow's DFL convention. Today, he debated his opponent, State Senator Terri Bonoff who was the heavy favorite going into the race.
I must say our members have been great. We have raised Ashwin money from our emails, and have donated $10,000 to his campaign, but in a desperation attempt to tarnish him in a debate today, she compared our donation from troops and Veterans to corporate PAC money. Excuse me, do we look like Wal Mart over here. I know Ashwin has raised money, and we helped, but VoteVets.org isn't a corporate PAC.
Since we are the voice of the 21st Century Patriot, and often we are caught explaining that everyone in our organization isn't a neo-con, like some think about the military, I wanted to share this piece I stumbled across today from ABC News.
Martha Raddatz, who is the Pentagon reporter for ABC News, was in Iraq following a visit by our favorite draft dodger, Vice President Dick Cheney. Following the speech, she interviewed the troops about who they were supporting for President. Let's just say, five votes for Senators Obama or Clinton, and one for Senator McCain.
"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.
