So here's the big announcement: After a little over two years at VoteVets.org, I've accepted a position at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C. I'll be working in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. As most of you know, this is the office run by Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth. I start there on Monday, and, of course, I'm excited about the opportunity--not only for myself, but for the chance to directly impact the way in which VA interacts with veterans of all eras.
I'm under no illusions about the challenges I'll be facing, however. It's as if the irony gods took one look at all my writing and past criticisms of the department and said, "Oh, really? So how about you put your money where your mouth is?" But that's fine with me. In reality, it's why I sought out a position in the Department of Veterans Affairs in the first place. I think if you're going to offer criticism, you've got to be willing, at some point, to step into the arena and give it a shot.
So on Friday, my political hat comes off. After three years of blogging and two years of working on military and veterans issues from within the political and media bubble, the fangs are coming out. On Monday morning, I'll wake up and find myself back in the politically neutral U.S. government world I left when I ETS'd from the Army in 2004. And instead fighting for policy change from the outside--as I've gotten so used to--I'll be working on the inside, hopefully to make the Department of Veterans Affairs a better place for all of us.
VetVoice, of course, will go on. Richard Smith--who has front-paged here since January 2008--will take over as editor of the site. He'll officially take the helm on Monday, but the change will be effective unofficially pretty quickly. For us at VoteVets, turning this place over to Richard was a no-brainer. Not only is he the next senior writer at VetVoice, but he's been volunteering for VoteVets since mid-2007. (When I needed an information source inside Afghanistan in '07 and '08, he was my guy.)
With his still-fairly-recent experience in Afghanistan, Richard will undoubtedly infuse this place with some new energy, and it's something I'm very much looking forward to reading. Chris LeJeune and Kayla Williams will continue contributing, as well, rounding out a fine team of military writers. However, what this means--since VetVoice will now be down a front-pager--is that you guys have to take up the slack in the diaries. Because remember, that's where front-pagers come from.
So with that, this will be my last front page post here. I'll likely come back to post a diary now and again in my new capacity at the Department of Veterans Affairs, but after over 700 individual blog posts here alone, this is pretty much it for me. It's been fun, this is a new chapter, and I'm ready to see what Richard, Chris, Kayla, and all you diarists and commenters can do with this place.
I'll be making an announcement concerning the site sometime on Wednesday. Use this as an open thread. (Or use it as a place to speculate about what's up.)
Throughout all the mayhem over involuntary IRR mobilizations, one thing that always really angered me was that the commander of the Army's Human Resources Command (HRC)--who'd served in that position for the previous two years--had never deployed. Here you had an organization charged with making decisions about who would be involuntarily pulled from their civilian lives and, in most cases, sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan for a second or third time, and the final say in the matter was decided by an officer who hadn't even gone once. Legal? Of course. That commander's fault? Probably not. Appropriate? Again, probably not.
If Joe has been deployed to combat twice, has a Purple Heart, and is now in school, the last thing Joe wants to hear is an officer who's never gone anywhere telling him that it's his duty to leave his family in order to go back a third time. It's just antithetical to the whole "lead from the front" thing. And it pisses soldiers off unnecessarily.
So I'm pleased to hear that the new commander of HRC, Col. Louis Wingate, has served in Iraq twice. There's nothing about this fact that makes up for the bizarre, disorganized mobilization techniques utilized by HRC, but at least it's something. And maybe Col. Wingate's experiences in a combat zone will affect his decisions in how HRC runs its shop--for the better.
While the topic of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law will come up this week at the confirmation hearing for three appointees to the Departments of the Army and Navy, it will likely only be a preview for the real thing later this fall:
The Daily Beast has learned that the Senate, prompted by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, will hold hearings on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--a first since 1993, despite Obama's campaign promises.
After determining she didn't have enough votes in support of a temporary suspension of the ban on gays in the military, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tells The Daily Beast she has secured the commitment of Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" this fall. It would be the first formal re-assessment of the policy since Congress passed it into law in 1993.
A statement from the Gillibrand's office, shared exclusively with The Daily Beast, notes that "265 men and women have been unfairly dismissed from the Armed Forces since President Barack Obama took office."
That's big news. This is a slow-moving process, but it's moving in the right direction.
U.S. troops say companies that recruit military translators are sending linguists to southern Afghanistan who are unprepared to serve in combat, even as hundreds more are needed to support the growing number of troops.
Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition -- and some don't even speak the right language.
"I've met guys off the planes and have immediately sent them back because they weren't in the proper physical shape," said Gunnery Sgt. James Spangler, who is in charge of linguists at Camp Leatherneck, the largest U.S. base in Helmand province.
"They were too old. They couldn't breathe. They complained about heart problems," he said. "We almost made a joke of it. We're almost receiving people on oxygen tanks and colostomy bags; it's almost getting to that point."
And that's not the worst of it.
Troops say low-skilled and disgruntled translators are putting U.S. forces at risk.
"Intelligence can save Marines' lives and give us the advantage on the battlefield," said Cpl. William Woodall, 26, of Dallas, who works closely with translators. "Instead of looking for quality, the companies are just pushing bodies out here, and once they're out the door, it's not their problem anymore."
You know what the solution is? Stop outsourcing one of the most important combat and counterinsurgency functions to the lowest bidder and start sending more soldiers to DLI. Every infantry platoon gets assigned a medic, right? He's not a contractor. Every infantry platoon gets assigned a forward observer, right? He's not a contractor. So why is the translator a contractor? And why aren't we investing in them like we should be?
Back in March, I wrote about DoD's plans to phase out the stop-loss program. As part of that plan, the department initiated a badly needed process by which stop-lossed soldiers would receive government checks of $500 for each calendar month they'd been prevented from leaving the service. According to the DoD's own press release, the payments would be retroactive to October 1, 2008--meaning if you'd been stop-lossed at any time since then, you'd be eligible for the money.
But somehow I missed the big news last month that an agreement had been reached in Congress to make those $500 payments retroactive to September 10, 2001. From today's Military Times:
The payment will be $500 a month for each calendar month a person spent at least one day under stop-loss orders.
By law, the Defense Department can take up to 120 days from June 24, the date Obama signed into law the Supplemental War Appropriations Act for 2009 that included the payment. If they use all 120 days, an application process would not be announced until Oct. 22.
Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said she could not speculate on when people could start applying. "We are currently working with the services to develop plans and procedures. When those procedures are finalized, the services will release the details of their plan and its implementation to the public," she said.
But it is still important that the estimated 185,000 people who would be eligible for the allowances do not procrastinate: The law gives them only one year from the day applications are accepted to file a claim. If they miss the one-year window, they will not be paid.
Payments will apply to anyone who was held on active duty beyond their separation or retirement date between Sept. 10, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2008. The allowance already has been paid to service members under stop-loss orders since Oct. 1, 2008, under temporary authority that will expire in September.
This was first announced in June, but apparently I missed it. Rick Maze covered it here at the time. So all you previously stop-lossed soldiers and marines get cracking on this. They'll be announcing the application process within the next couple of months.
Editor's note: Original title read "F-22 Program Finally Finished."
The Senate just voted 58-40 to end production of the F-22. It's great news and VoteVets.org just released the following statement:
VETERANS CHEER LEVIN-MCCAIN AMENDMENT PASSAGE ON F22
"We didn't need these planes, the Pentagon didn't want these planes.
Special interests wanted these planes."
WASHINGTON - Veterans today cheered the passage of the Levin-McCain amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate, stripping additional funds added in committee for F-22 Raptor jets that the Pentagon didn't want, and funding for which it opposed.
Brandon Friedman, Vice Chairman for VoteVets.org and an Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran himself said:
"This was the right vote. We didn't need these planes, the Pentagon didn't want these planes. Special interests wanted these planes, which serve no purpose in the wars we're fighting. As Secretary Gates suggested, every dollar that would've gone to these planes would've been a dollar taken away from our troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq now. And that was unacceptable. We already have 187 F-22s in hangars or in the pipeline. That's sufficient. Senators McCain and Levin provided clear leadership on this issue, and we're thankful they were there."
And now for something not-so-serious. I don't typically write book or movie reviews, but after this weekend, I really felt compelled to. This movie just stuck in my craw. But take heed: This is a review for military people. So if you've never been in the military or never been to Iraq, just stop reading this. Because if you keep reading, I'll probably ruin what could be a pretty good action flick for you.
The Hurt Locker is a high-tension, well-made, action movie that will certainly keep most viewers on the edges of their seats. But if you know anything about the Army, or about operations or life in Iraq, you'll be so distracted by the nonsensical sequences and plot twists that it will ruin the movie for you. It certainly did for me.
To say that the scenes in this movie were "tactically unrealistic" wouldn't even begin to describe it. I imagine they probably had terribly frustrated military consultants on set. You could tell they tried, but the director was like, "Nah, let's have the three EOD guys split up alone and go chasing bad guys at night through city streets. People will love it!" And the military consultants probably just rolled their eyes.
But let me first set the stage here: This movie is about the addictive adrenaline rush of combat--how it fuels the soldier and how, like any drug, it can be fatal. Okay, I got that. No problem there. And as the vehicle for this type of adrenaline junkie, the writers chose to make it about an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team--and one team member in particular. Now that's a stressful job, so I have no problem with that plot scenario, either. Should be interesting.
But here's where the problems start. Because the script writers were, for lack of a better term, lazy, they couldn't formulate a story tying the adrenaline rush of combat to the actual job of your average EOD soldier in Iraq. So they decided instead to make a movie about an EOD/Ranger/sniper/commando/hero guy and his two sidekicks. Who apparently don't have access to radios. And who travel around Iraq by themselves. In fact, most of the scenes rely on oddly and unrealistically contrived situations to induce a stressful reaction from the audience.
And whether you're writing a screenplay or a book, this is a lazy technique. It's hard to create stress by developing a character's personality so intricately that the audience is actually gripped by a decision the character must make with regard to, say, suicide. On the other hand, it's easy to create stress by strapping a bomb to a guy, locking him in a metal cage/harness with multiple heavy-duty padlocks and placing a timer on it set to expire in two minutes. As exhibited in The Hurt Locker, this is especially effective when the EOD tech arrives on the scene with bolt cutters that don't work. Panic ensues.
But ultimately, the former technique is reflective of some great movies that stay with you. The latter is a cheap thrill you'll forget about by Monday morning.
So, without giving away too many scenes, let's just suffice it to say, in real life, EOD techs don't conduct dangerous missions as autonomous three-man teams without communications gear. They don't typically carjack Iraqi VCD sellers with a 9mm while wearing civilian clothes, either. While on Camp Victory. And even if they did, they wouldn't be driven off base by the Iraqi and dropped off at another Iraqi family's house, at which time they hop a wall, enter an unlocked door, get into an altercation, flee the scene, and run through an Iraqi city attempting to make it back to the base.
That typically doesn't happen. Another thing you'll rarely hear in combat is an EOD E-7 suggesting to two or three of his guys that they leave the scene of an explosion in an Iraqi city by saying: "C'mon, let's split up. We can cover more ground that way." But you'll hear it in The Hurt Locker.
Reading all the positive reviews for this movie, I really had high hopes for it. But I just couldn't get past uber-fictional portrayal of life in combat in Iraq. If you can, more power to you. Enjoy the movie. It's definitely not boring. As rendered, however, it's no Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead, or even The Longest Day.
Oh, and one last complaint: If you've already watched the movie and thought you were seeing things, yes, those were actually Vietnam-era UH-1 Huey helicopters they were using for the casualty evacuation scene.
Watch retired Army Lt. Col., Fox News military analyst, and execution enthusiast Ralph Peters piss away his credibility by suggesting the Taliban could "save us a lot of legal hassles" by executing Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl:
I'll be the first to admit that something about this incident doesn't smell right. But proposing that an American soldier should be executed by the Taliban is extraordinarily inappropriate at best--regardless of whether or not the soldier is a deserter.
Such proclamations aren't unusual for Peters, however. He actually has a bizarre penchant for executions. Recently, Peters stated his lusty desire to see the U.S. government execute all prisoners at Guantanamo Bay--without regard for their legal rights, and in spite of the fact that, in his own words, "there will be miscarriages of justice." And in another instance in May of this year, Peters also called for "military attacks on the partisan media."
Ralph just wants to see some executions. Doesn't matter who. Soldier, terrorist, just anybody. Somebody needs to die. Now.
At least two Afghan villages have been blanketed with leaflets warning that if an American soldier kidnapped by the Taliban two weeks ago isn't freed, "you will be targeted."
Villagers near the border of two volatile provinces, Ghazni and Paktika, tell CBS News' Sami Yousafzai that aircraft dropped the leaflets during the past several days.
Military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias confirmed that the leaflets were produced at Bagram Air Base, the primary U.S. installation in Afghanistan, and distributed in the region. She told CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark, however, that they were distributed by hand, not aircraft.
The papers show on one side an image of a soldier with his head bowed so that his face is not visible (above). A message in the local Pashtun language over the image says, "If you do not free the American soldier, then..."
On the other side, an image shows Western troops breaking into a house. The rest of the message is printed across the photo: "...you will be targeted".
CBS goes on to note--and this is the important part:
While American military and intelligence services have dropped leaflets on Afghanistan for years, most of them have clearly targeted militants -- frequently carrying photos or caricatures of Taliban leaders.
The new leaflet represents a broader, direct warning to local people in the region where the U.S. soldier was seized.
Here's the deal: You don't pull a gun on someone unless you're willing to use it. Likewise, you don't threaten to "target" an entire village unless you're willing to do, well . . . some serious damage. And make no mistake: These leaflets are threatening civilians. They weren't hand-delivered to local Taliban leaders or opium warlords. They were spread throughout two villages. And this isn't a practice that's typically utilized.
Now, whether the U.S. intends to actually target civilians is another question. It won't happen. But it's the threat that counts. And vocally threatening to do something without a willingness to back it up leads to problems in conflict situations--whether it's an argument in the back of a school bus or a war in the Middle East.
So, one of two things happens here. If it works, the Afghan village elders, coerced by the threat of potential air strikes on their village--and suddenly more afraid of the Americans than the Taliban--decide to step in and either hand over or negotiate for the release of the American soldier.
On the other hand, if it doesn't work, the Afghan villagers can choose to do nothing and essentially dare us to get heavy-handed. Or, even worse, whoever has the soldier can take one look at the leaflets and then decide to deliver us his head with a note that says, "Go ahead and bomb the village." At which point we can either go against the new McChrystal strategy and move through like the Green Tornado--and risk crucifixion in the media--or we can walk back the bellicose threats in the leaflets and come off looking extraordinarily weak. Either way, we've put ourselves in a bad negotiating position.
Obviously gathering human intelligence in the area is not easy--and I don't envy those who are operating there now. But one thing we'd probably be wise not to do is to go around threatening to "target" civilian Afghan villagers unless we're willing to do just that.
Ultimately, I think whoever came up with the idea to print these things didn't really think it through. While the likelihood of success using a technique like this is slim, the chance of inflaming the locals even further is much higher. This whole thing seems clumsy and ham-handed, and will almost certainly do more harm than good. I'd love to be proved wrong.
McClatchy is reporting that the Iraqi government "won't allow U.S. forces on the street" in Baghdad, "except for supply convoys." This is great news if they can hold it.
The Defense Department has backed off on plans to begin making the military a tobacco-free environment. So enjoy'em while you got'em. This potential, phased-in ban was rolled out poorly, so it met with resistance from every corner. Even though no one suggested the government's Morale Suppression Squad would immediately deploy agents to the front lines to confiscate Joe's smokes, that's exactly how the pro-tobacco opposition framed it. And you guys were successful. So well played, my tobacco-loving friends, well played.
I've been following the bizarre story of the field grade Army officer who claims that President Obama isn't a U.S. citizen and, thus, can't order him to Afghanistan. This whole thing is a stupid publicity stunt/scam, so I'm not really inclined to get into it. But I will say this: After the Defense Department rescinded Major Stefan Cook's orders on account of the fact that only two months ago he had volunteered to go--and could legally change his mind at any time--UJ at Blackfive and Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette combined for the best response:
So if this is the case, this asshole volunteered to go, sued to play the birth certificate card, and now claims this means Obama is from Venus. What a loser. As Greyhawk points out this means either some poor bastard gets a call today to leave on no notice, or the unit deploys to war one officer short. Either way this Maj Cook is a buddy f**king piece of shit.
VoteVets.org added to its slate of Congressional candidates yesterday by endorsing Iraq veteran Anthony Woods for the seat previously held by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA). Tauscher has accepted an appointment at the State Department and a special election primary will occur on September 1, 2009.
"A historic candidate for a critical point in history" say veterans
WASHINGTON DC -- The largest progressive group of veterans in America, with more than 100,000 members, has endorsed Anthony Woods' campaign for Congress in California's 10th District. VoteVets.org PAC will add Woods to its list of endorsed veteran candidates, and donate to his campaign.
"Anthony Woods is a historic candidate for a critical point in history," said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran, and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Anthony is fresh, eager, and has an incredible track record of service. His military record is incredibly impressive. And, he'll bring vigorous leadership to Congress that will benefit his district. We urge voters in his district to send him to Congress."
Soltz particularly was impressed with Woods' insight into military issues, and his record in the Armed Services.
"More and more, older veterans are retiring, leaving a dearth of experience in Congress on military issues. Anthony understands these issues incredibly well, and it's important to have his expertise there in the halls of power," said Soltz.
And here is Woods' bio:
The son of a single mom from Fairfield CA, Anthony Woods is a decorated combat veteran, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He served two tours of duty in Iraq from 2004-2006, leading 81 soldiers in battle and earning the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal.
He volunteered for his first deployment to Iraq in 2004, leading a platoon of West Virginia National Guard soldiers. Anthony deployed with his unit (as part of the 1st Infantry Division) to Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, serving as a platoon leader responsible for a volatile region housing more than 66,000 Iraqis for eleven months.
In June of 2005, Woods was again deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Upon his arrival, he immediately took command of a 64 soldier platoon. During this deployment Woods' unit was involved in the Battle for Tal Afar. Woods was awarded his Bronze Star during this nine month tour.
Woods brought home all those soldiers who served under his command. He was discharged after challenging the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 2008.
He was a co-recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Public Service Award for his work his work mentoring low-income minorities applying to college and numerous other community leadership activities---including co-founding the first student chapter of the Fuller Center for Housing, and making three trips to New Orleans to assist families struggling to rebuild following Hurricane Katrina.
Woods has gone on to work in both the public and private sectors, helping to craft economic solutions that put Americans back to work and attract new high wage industries.
As Combat Infantry Bunny mentioned in her diary today, VetVoice front-pager Kayla Williams will be appearing before the Senate Veterans Committee in a hearing that begins at 9:30 AM ET. The topic is "Women Veterans: Bridging the Gaps in Care," and you can watch the live feed at the Committee's website by clicking here.
UPDATE 10:47amBy Richard Smith:
VoteVets representing:
VoteVets.org Senior Advisor and VetVoice front-pager Kayla Williams testifies before the Senate Committee on Veterans affairs
"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.
