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
In the midst of the debate over whether or not to suspend production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, the Washington Post has revealed exactly how much it costs to fly and maintain each aircraft. It's dizzying.
The F-22 costs more than $44,000 an hour to fly. That's nearly 50 percent more than it costs to maintain its predecessor, the F-15. Think about that. That's what most Americans make in a year. And while the Air Force says the cost to fly the plane for an hour is $44,300, the Office of the Secretary of Defense says it's actually $49,800. They throw these numbers around like they're nothing.
Of course, I don't have an issue with spending whatever it takes to keep America safe. The problem with expanding production of these extravagantly priced F-22s is that they represent the cost to use something we'll likely never need--a Top Gun-style fighter jet which would've come in handy in the 1980s--at the expense of things we could really use at home and abroad--now.
Let's look at this another way. Let's look at it in terms of domestic issues and national security ones. Most operational F-22s are based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. According to the state Department of Education, the average annual salary of a Virginia public school teacher in 2009 is $51,900. So a public school teacher in Virginia deals with unruly fourth graders for an entire year to earn the amount it costs to fly an airplane for an hour. An airplane America will not need unless we find ourselves in all-out war with China or Russia. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
But let's not stop there. Let's turn to Afghanistan where troops have faced equipment and personnel shortages since 2001. The average infantry staff sergeant serving as a squad leader there--a person without whom counterinsurgency operations simply could not take place--makes around $32,500 a year. A first lieutenant platoon leader commanding a rural outpost in Pashtunistan makes around $41,800. You can add on, say, $10,000 to these positions for hazardous duty pay, housing, etc. Either way, the annual salaries of these critical personnel are more or less in line with what it costs to fly an F-22 for an hour.
That we would spend as much money in an hour flying a nearly useless fighter jet as we do paying critical personnel to fight the war on the ground is obscene. Many would say the teacher salary comparison is even worse. If I thought this jet would help enhance our national security at any time in the next 25 years, I'd offer a full-throated defense for its continued production. But because the program lives on as a contractor-driven Cold War zombie hunting for Congressional brains, it's just not something I can support. The money presently being allocated for more F-22s should instead be used to address the threats we might face in the near- to medium-term future--and not our Cold War foes.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to gradually phase in a plan that would ultimately ban troops from using tobacco. I don't think this is a bad idea--primarily because I don't like my tax dollars going to pay for this:
Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, says the report, which used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, says the study, which was released late last month.
If you want to smoke, fine. But I don't want to have to pay for the damage it does to you. And considering that they're talking about implementing this gradually over the course of 10 to 20 years, I don't think there's a lot of room for complaining. It's not like government officials are deploying to Afghanistan later this year to confiscate the cigarettes of troops in the thick of the fight.
That said, if they're going to ban tobacco for health reasons, then they should probably also look into revamping chow hall and MRE menus. Saturated fat probably kills at least as many veterans every year as tobacco.
And no, I don't understand why many whine about the "nanny state" and the "right" to gorge themselves on mechanically separated, industrially processed "food" that's been preserved with chemicals and loaded with unnatural levels of saturated fats and sugar while sucking down addictive carcinogen sticks. It's truly weird.
Of course, this bears mentioning, too: If DoD implements this gradual tobacco ban, I expect that by the time the paperwork gets signed, the Commander-in-Chief will be smoke-free himself. Gotta lead by example.
If the Alabama National Guard is still having trouble figuring out why their organization was singled out for mockery by Sacha Baron Cohen in his latest film, Bruno, McClatchy can help you out:
Beyond what's in the trailers, the content of the footage featuring the National Guard facility is not publicly known. Lt. Col. Cindy Bachus, state public affairs officer for the Alabama National Guard, said she has no intention of finding out.
"We believed this was someone who was there to see what it was like to be a soldier," Bachus said.
"That was not the case. He had an ulterior motive for getting on post. Nobody found it amusing ... we truly believed this was a German reporter."
Was she not even a little bit curious?
"No, not really," she said. "Because when someone deceives an organization like ours for personal gains, how can you promote that?"
Col. Chuck Keith, director of the McClellan Training Center, had a hard time containing his laughter when asked if he would see the film.
"Why, hell no, I won't be there," he said, adding later, "I've gone through that stuff in my mind since it happened. It still is a non-event for us. They came under false pretenses, fooled our public affairs office in Montgomery ... went through their routine and ran like cowards. But at that time they had all the things they wanted to film."
I have an idea Lt. Col Bachus and Col Keith: How about lighten up? I'm not sure that attacking movies the kids love is the preferred technique for attracting recruits into the Guard. And seriously, what PAO thinks it's a good idea to openly engage a comedian with hostility?
NAWA, Afghanistan -- One week after several battalions of Marines swept through the Helmand River valley, military commanders appear increasingly concerned about a lack of Afghan forces in the field.
"What I need is more Afghans," said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. He accompanied the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, during a visit with troops at Patrol Base Jaker here on Monday.
This is disappointing, to say the least. As I said over at the SWJ site, this would be stunning, frankly, if the Afghan forces don't materialize. After all this talk of doing things differently after eight years, after all the talk of "putting an Afghan face" on it, after all the hoopla surrounding McChrystal's appointment and the "new" COIN strategy, we send 4,000 troops into a Taliban-held area without a full complement of Afghan forces?
I'm sure there's a lot of politicking taking place on the ground, so I'll withhold criticism until I hear that the Afghans definitely aren't coming. Hopefully this is just a temporary delay. Otherwise, I don't see this turning out well.
As momentum builds toward an eventual repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress, has now assumed the lead in sponsoring the bill.
"It is vital to our national security," Murphy said last week in his first interview since taking over the lead on the so-called Military Readiness Enhancement Act. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars ... and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."
The legislation, which has 150 co-sponsors in the House, would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which Congress approved in September 1993 and bars the military from discriminating on the basis of a service member's sexual orientation. More than 13,000 military personnel have been discharged for being gay since the law was enacted.
In Murphy, 35, Democratic leadership in the House has an aggressive two-term lawmaker who in 2006 was the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress. A former prosecutor and West Point professor, Murphy was a captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.
He said he anticipates a drawn-out battle to rally enough support to bring the bill to the floor. The legislation, first introduced in 2005, has never made it out of committee.
"This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen," Murphy said.
This morning, Murphy sent out an email to his supporters with more details:
In less than an hour [10:00 AM], we will officially announce that I am taking over as the chief sponsor for The Military Readiness Enhancement Act -- the bill that will finally repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask,Don't Tell." I have been speaking out against for many years against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- first as an ROTC cadet, then as a professor at West Point, and later as a candidate and a congressman. To now take the lead on such an important piece of legislation is an honor and a privilege beyond words.
This is going to be a busy day full of meetings and interviews. We'll even be launching a new website dedicated to this issue: LetThemServe.com. But before it all got started I wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand up and fight for the values we all believe in. I couldn't do this without you, and I'll never forget that.
So, to sum up, here's where we stand on this issue:
69 percent of Americans support a repeal of the DADT law.
The Commander-in-Chief has "asked the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal."
The Secretary of Defense stated last week that he's looking "to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed."
And now, an Iraq vet has taken the lead on repealing the law in the House.
We're not there yet (and I know many are skeptical of Gates' and Mullen's choice of the word "change" over "repeal"), but the momentum is close to critical mass at this point.
Given that the troops have been harmed by this law, it's good to see a soldier leading the way on the repeal.
UPDATE: Forgot to include this clip of Congressman Murphy during a hearing on DADT last year:
The Web site said Monday that the Taliban had "arrested a drunken American soldier" five days ago.
They said the soldier was still in their custody but would not elaborate on his whereabouts or their plans for him.
The Web site provided no proof of their claim.
The soldier is believed to be the first U.S. serviceman captured in Afghanistan.
So, I realize Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin, storms in the northeast today, blah, blah. . .but I'm wondering why there's zero coverage of this story. CNN last covered it on Thursday, I think. Is it because the media and the American people are totally unconcerned, or is it because the media is going along with the Defense Department in an effort to starve the Taliban of the attention they might want out of this? Or is it because the media knows more about this odd story than they're letting on? If this is being handled much like the case of NYT reporter David Rohde, then I would understand.
Either way, if this had happened a few years ago, it would be all over the news. I would hate to think that an American soldier could be in the hands of the Taliban and it would be seen widely as no big deal, really.
While in Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden was pretty clear about what a failure to make political progress would mean for U.S. troops:
He added that there "wasn't any appetite to put Humpty Dumpty back together again if, by the action of people in Iraq, it fell apart."
The warning was a dramatic indication of the changing U.S. posture in Iraq, the foremost foreign policy concern of the Bush administration. The statements suggested that the Obama administration would absolve itself of responsibility if Iraq again descended into chaos, dragged down by still-unresolved crises. They include border disputes between Kurds and Arabs and also legislation for Iraq's oil resources.
Even if the war itself was wrongly waged, it made some sense to provide some security to the Iraqis as they transitioned to a new government. But, Iraqis never took advantage of that security, after a government was formed, through the surge, and the end of the surge, to resolve their major internal differences without violence. In short, the reality of the US leaving them on their own never seemed like a possibility. When there was trouble, we sent more troops in to tamp down violence ourselves.
That hardly encourages self-reliance or self-preservation. It only encourages dependency.
That's why the surge was nothing more than keeping the cork on the bottle, and why the only real option left is to make clear that all of Iraqis leaders and factions will lose, unless they resolve their internal political battles -- now.
SORKHDOZ, Afghanistan -- The mullah's message was blunt. We don't trust you and if you don't earn our trust, our first meeting will be our last.
With that, he stood abruptly and walked out of his first "shura," or council meeting, with U.S. Marines.
U.S. forces who have moved deep into formerly Taliban-controlled territory in southern Afghanistan this week say they are here to stay and will not leave until they have improved the lives of ordinary people.
But locals -- used to seeing NATO troops come through to fight but fail to follow through on promises of development -- may not be won over easily.
Given the last eight years (or 20, really), I probably would've treated the Marines the same way if I'd been the tribal elder. There's clearly a high bar being set here. And what makes it so difficult is that 99.9 percent of the troops on the ground can meet that standard, but if one guy goes off the rails and kills an influential tribal leader, or if one platoon accidentally shoots up a family of four at a checkpoint, then it has the potential to sour the whole process. That's an extraordinary challenge we face.
And it's not that those individual killings would make the impact, either. It's the chain reaction they set off.
The US military refused to confirm details but a commander of the Taleban's hardline Haqqani faction said that his men had captured the soldier in the southeastern Paktika province, which borders Pakistan.
"One of our commanders named Mawlawi Sangin has captured a coalition soldier along with his three Afghan guards in Yousuf Khail district of Paktika province," the commander, named only Bahram, told the AFP news agency.
Also just saw a CNN report where Barbara Starr suggested the possibility that they would transport the soldier to Pakistan.
In another instance of a blogger doing the media's job for it, Steve Hynd has just written a piece at Newshoggers that should raise a lot of eyebrows. It's one of those pieces where, whichever side of the COIN debate you're on, you're sort of stopped mid-sentence by Steve's implications.
I'd provide excerpts, but you have to read the whole thing (though it's not long). Go read it here.
There's been some movement on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" front this week. On one hand, a military administrative board recommended that New York National Guardsman First Lt. Dan Choi be discharged for violating the policy. Via the AP:
Lt. Dan Choi would be the first New York National Guard member discharged for violating the policy against homosexual conduct, said Lt. Col. Paul Fanning, a spokesman for the New York Army National Guard.
Choi, 28, appeared in Syracuse before a Federal Recognition Board, a panel of four military officers, which deliberated four hours before deciding to recommend the Army no longer recognize him as an officer. In essence, that amounts to a discharge, Fanning said.
I'm not really sure what choice the board had, however. The law is clear. But this relates to the other development this week. For the first time, the Defense Department is proactively exploring ways that would give the department a choice. The AP has this one, too:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.
"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.
The defense chief, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.
For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.
"That's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.
If we can just get past the few dead-enders high up in the ranks who oppose a repeal, we'll get this thing done.
BAGHDAD -- A car bomb exploded in a crowded outdoor market in the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, killing at least 27 people, police said, a deadly reminder of the challenges facing the Iraqi government even as it celebrated the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from cities.
The bombing marred what had otherwise been a festive day as Iraqis commemorated the newly declared National Sovereignty Day with military parades and marching bands. It also came hours after four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat Monday in Baghdad.
They're celebrating in Baghdad--which is good--but pessimism is still bubbling just beneath the surface. People like Tom Ricks--who sees an unraveling--and Jon Soltz have written in the last 24 hours about how the whole thing could come apart if the withdrawal goes poorly.
I think there's a solid chance that happens. But I'm hoping, instead, that the reality is more akin to that described by one of Ricks' readers--a marine who's currently just west of Baghdad:
Despite recent reporting, the area is stable, while still not completely safe. The attacks mentioned in the article are not part of a mounting trend, but are normal and to be expected from time to time in this environment. If we want Iraq to return to normal it will necessarily mean making itself more vulnerable to these kinds of attacks.
But we have taken it as far as Americans can. In my opinion, anything we do now may do more harm than good in delaying the inevitable and reinforcing their, at times, crippling malaise. The only enduring role for Americans is to provide the safety net to prevent complete collapse, chaos, and civil war; three things that I do not believe will happen in any event."
So I guess we'll find out. But regardless of whether the place is primed to implode or not, I think at this point, most people connected to the conflict can agree with the marine: We've taken it as far as Americans can.
UPDATE: Here's some analysis today on MSNBC from Jon Soltz and others:
On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives held a moment of silence for the Man in the Mirror. Okay. Fine. But do they hold a moment of silence each time a service member they've sent to Iraq or Afghanistan dies in combat? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
In early July the Army will conduct a 90-day online test using seven existing manuals that every soldier, from private to general officer, will have the opportunity to read and modify in a "wiki"-style environment.
The people who write doctrine say that with things changing so fast in the field, it has been hard to keep the Army's 550 manuals up to date and relevant.
By letting the entire Army update the manuals, they say, more and better information can go out to a wider population of soldiers.
"The reality is that a lot of our doctrine simply has not kept up with the needs of the field, and a lot of the information being used right now is in local area networks being run by units that are deployed," said Clint Ancker, director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
Unfortunately, in stereotypical Army fashion, they're weighing it down with unnecessary rules and stipulations that will eventually make the new wiki manuals useless--or at least not better than their printed counterparts--because no one will want to take the time to participate.
Those who want to participate will be required to establish a profile at the test site, which is scheduled to be launched in the first week of July. On the site, they will be known by their name, rank and unit.
This is an important bad idea. It's antithetical to what a wiki even is. The whole idea behind a wiki is that ideas are judged on their merit alone--regardless of who's doing the writing. And to facilitate that, less qualified (or, in this case, lower ranking) people who might have good ideas are encouraged to participate. However, when you force people to identify themselves in a forum where they're being asked to critique--or criticize--most lower-level people will either choose not to participate or they'll be considerably less honest with their feedback.
Imagine an auditorium on post filled with 500 recently-returned soldiers of all ranks. A three-star general stands on stage, eyeing the group, and says he wants honest feedback about what worked down range and what didn't. The only thing he asks is that before the soldier gives his feedback, the soldier should stand up and identify himself with his "name, rank, and unit." At this point, of course, seasoned platoon sergeants lean forward in their seats and look down the line at their soldiers.
Does anyone envision an E-4 standing up--without having his suggestion vetted by his chain of command--and giving advice to the general officer and the rest of the BCT?
Me neither. Even though that E-4 might have a great idea.
But this isn't the first time the Army has disallowed individuals from submitting ideas without disclosing their identities. Take this post from an administrator at the USACAC blog directed toward an anonymous commenter named "Critical Realist":
Critical Realist,
Appreciate your input. However, we are attempting to ensure those who participate in this blog either sign in using their name, or sign their posts. This ensures users are in compliance with CAC Blog rule #7:
"All remarks made by military and Army DoD personnel MUST be fully attributable in accordance with the CAC CG's policy memo on blogging."
See? This is counterproductive. I know the military has been attempting to embrace new media and social networking, but here's the deal: Either you embrace it, or you don't. Either open it up to critiques from all sides--anonymous or not--or just go back to doing things the traditional way.
Either way, I think there's a simple solution here: For the new Army manual wikis, require that participants sign in with their Common Access Card (CAC) as a way for site administrators to determine eligibility. Then give soldiers the option of publicly masking how much of their identity others will see. This way, commanders can rest assured that no one will participate who shouldn't be, and soldiers of all ranks, with all types of experience, will feel comfortable offering advice.
Is this a typical way of doing things in a military chain of command? Of course it isn't. But that's the point.
Read this piece by author and historian Steven Pressfield if you want to see how to do COIN right. This is the very definition of "fight smarter, not harder," and it's an example that everyone who's in--or going to--Afghanistan should see.
While some members of the U.S. Congress are arguing "that a definable victory in Iraq has been achieved," reality suggests otherwise. This week alone, two massive bombings rocked Baghdad killing over 120 people. This is Monday's attack:
Iraq market bomb toll jumps to 52 killed
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The death toll in a bombing on Monday in Baghdad's largely Shi'ite Sadr City slum jumped to 52, making the attack one of Iraq's worst this year, police said.
A bomb ripped through a crowded market in Baghdad's main Shiite district on Wednesday, killing at least 69 people and wounding more than 100 less than a week before a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq's urban areas.
A series of blasts this week have killed more than 160 people, as U.S. and Iraqi officials warned they expected more violence before the U.S. withdrawal from cities.
More violence is likely to erupt as groups rush to fill the gaps left by withdrawing U.S. forces. What we still don't know is whether or not the Iraqi security forces are capable enough to handle such an escalation. Either way, this shouldn't affect the planned exit of American troops from Iraqi cities.
Jon Soltz went on MSNBC yesterday and gently explained to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) why the congressman was wrong to be more concerned about jobs in his district than the needs of our ground troops currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Here's the key message. It's near the end:
JON SOLTZ: It's about how we spend our money. The Congressman cares about the Lockheed Martin stock price, and I care about the men and women who fight on the ground. And this weapon system does nothing for us.
And just to be clear: The F-22 was designed in the late 1980s for dogfighting, a la Maverick and Goose. It's not a close air support aircraft like the planned F-35 is.
The F-22 is the perfect plane for Cold Warriors who expect we'll be frequently engaging MiGs in air-to-air combat over the next 20 years.
Roll eyes, laugh, or be worried? Via Travis Sharp at Nukes of Hazard, we learn that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has added an amendment to the House Defense Authorization bill concerning "Victory in Iraq" that:
Would express the sense of Congress that the "surge strategy" in Iraq worked and that a definable victory in Iraq has been achieved.
So when is the victory parade with the confetti and all that?
This is a good start, but with one significant caveat:
The new American commander in Afghanistan said he would sharply restrict the use of airstrikes here, in an effort to reduce the civilian deaths that he said were undermining the American-led mission.
In interviews over the past few days, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the use of airstrikes during firefights would in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun.
Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces, he said, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas -- the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover.
"Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly," General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. "We can lose this fight."
The big caveat is this: To do this in such a way that ground commanders will remain comfortable with their missions, those commanders on the ground will need both more troops for fighting and more people with area expertise who can help to enhance intelligence-gathering operations on the ground. Without these additional elements from the Obama administration, this new approach not only further endangers U.S. troops (because you're removing a combat tool), but it also does little to mitigate civilian casualties. Because ground troops--when stuck in precarious positions--can do a lot of damage in civilian areas, too.
Implemented correctly, McChrystal's move is a necessary and long-overdue one that will help immensely. But without support from the rear, it's a strategy that could backfire. So let's hope McChrystal and his commanders on the ground get all the personnel and resources they need.
I've always liked the idea of implementing an ROTC-like program for America's foreign service and its intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, the proposition has never really caught on due to perceived difficulties in implementing such a program. Despite those challenges, however, one of the few organizations willing to get out in front of the idea has been Third Way--the think tank whose analysts have been quietly pushing such a program for over a year.
The Obama administration has proposed the creation of an intelligence officer training program in colleges and universities that would function much like the Reserve Officers' Training Corps run by the military services. The idea is to create a stream "of first- and second-generation Americans, who already have critical language and cultural knowledge, and prepare them for careers in the intelligence agencies," according to a description sent to Congress by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair.
In recent years, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have struggled to find qualified recruits who can work the streets of the Middle East and South Asia to penetrate terrorist groups and criminal enterprises. The proposed program is an effort to cultivate and educate a new generation of career intelligence officers from ethnically and culturally diverse backgrounds.
Under the proposal, part of the administration's 2010 intelligence authorization bill, colleges and universities would apply for grants that would be used to expand or introduce courses of study to "meet the emerging needs of the intelligence community." Those courses would include certain foreign languages, analysis and specific scientific and technical fields.
The students' participation in the program would probably be kept secret to prevent them from being identified by foreign intelligence services, according to an official familiar with the proposal.
To see the details of what the administration is urging, see page 21 of the President's 2010 Proposed Intelligence Authorization. In a rapidly changing world, this type of program will be crucial in terms of molding and maintaining a flexible, capable, and diverse national security foundation in the country.
One way you can help the oppressive Iranian government crush dissent is by handing them the argument that the protesters are tools of foreign governments. Allow them to say that the massive protest movement isn't a home-grown uprising. Let the ayatollahs tell the Iranian people that it's a product of American meddling--and that no patriotic, un-coerced Iranians would participate.
If you're interested in assisting the theocratic Iranian regime like this, then you probably want to check out the press conference being held later today by Republican Congressmen Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, Dan Burton, and Dana Rohrabacher. Via email:
June 18, 2009
Rep. Pence and Republican Leaders to Hold Press Conference Supporting Iranian Dissidents
Washington -- House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence and other House Leaders will hold a press conference today, June 18th at 1:45 p.m. in the House Radio/TV Gallery, H-321, the U.S. Capitol to discuss the current situation in Iran and a resolution Rep. Pence introduced supporting the Iranian dissidents.
This press conference is designed to draw attention to Congressman Pence's H. Res. 549 which declares in part:
"We are witnessing a Tiananmen in Tehran and the United States must stand in the gap. While the President may be 'troubled by the violence,' he has yet to express the unqualified support of the American people for those who are courageously risking their lives for free elections and democracy in Iran. If the President of the United States will not express our nation's solidarity with the dissidents in the streets of Tehran, then Congress must."
Actually, the United States must not "stand in the gap." This isn't about us. This is an internal movement within Iran and, ultimately, it's how democracies are born. And it's why the President has refrained from jumping directly into the fray over the Iranian election. As soon as we take an active role in trying to shape events in Iran, we'll hand the Iranian government the argument it needs to persuade regular Iranians that this isn't an organic uprising.
The defining characteristic of the enemy--then and now--is not Islamo-fascism or Islamic extremism or Jihadism or terrorism. I believe it's tribalism and the tribal mindset that give the enemy his power.
--Steven Pressfield
When I was a history major ten years ago, I took a class called Middle East History. The course was kind of dry, but as an ROTC cadet and aspiring Army officer, one of the assigned books actually got my attention. It was called Gates of Fire and it was a fictional, first-person account of the battle at Thermopylae--the epic battle between the Spartans and the Persians. The book was written by historian Steven Pressfield and it has since become a modern military classic, read by junior leaders throughout the services. In fact, I still have my original copy--with all of my favorite passages marked.
Pressfield has now completed a fascinating five-part series of video blogs on tribalism in Afghanistan called It's the Tribes, Stupid. Pressfield describes the series this way:
Think of these videos as a crash course in tribalism. Start with Episode 1. I invite discussion. Tell me I'm crazy, tell me I'm out to lunch. If you agree, tell me too.
You can see the first part here, and view the remaining four at Pressfield's site:
I agree with much of what Pressfield says, but not all of it. The more important aspect of this entire project, however, is that Pressfield is attempting to move a once-obscure topic and perspective into the mainstream--where it no doubt belongs. If we'd been having the same discussion in 2001 that Pressfield is now spurring in 2009, our military and our national security situation would've been far better off. But perhaps it's not too late. So check out the vlog and let him--and us--know your comments!
So I'm back at work. Been a long couple of weeks, but I think we're settled now after the move from Dallas. Alex and I are now living in Alexandria, Virginia--near Reagan National Airport--and we can see the Capitol building from our patio. So that's nice.
But just so you know, I'll tell you what's not nice: Don't ever move across the country with a cat unless you absolutely have to. Lots of people gave us advice on that and, well, it was still miserable. By the end of the trip I was afraid we were about to end in a three-way divorce. To make a long story short, I'll sum it up by saying that what started with a cat who had an opposite reaction to the Xanax--which made him crazy--culminated in a giant poop in the car while sitting at a standstill in a traffic jam on the loop around Knoxville. Fun.
Anyway, that's all in the past, the cat's happy in his new home, and I'll have a post up shortly about Steven Pressfield's (Gates of Fire) new video series on tribalism in Afghanistan.
"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.
