On the heels of Admiral Mullen's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is "the right thing to do", Military Times has released a new survey showing sharply declining support for the policy within the ranks:
An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.
Now, we can't forget an important caveat: as we've pointed out here previously, and by Military Times own admission, the results of this poll are unscientific and do not reflect the overall demographic of the United States Armed Forces. The sample is based on 8,001 self-selected subscribers and 213 self-selected newsstand readers which "are on average, older, more experienced, and more senior in rank than the overall military population". Females, minorities and junior enlisted Soldiers, (read: the demographic most would estimate to be more inclined to support a repeal of DADT) are underrepresented in the sample.
What we can glean for these results, however, is a trend. As you can see from the graphic above, opposition to open homosexual service is trending sharply downward, with support trending sharply upward. I'm no sociologist, but I would make the argument that this is a result of millennial generation servicemembers, who are more likely to display open attitudes to sexual orientation diversity, moving into the mid-career and higher ranks. I would also argue that a) as more of said generation move into the demographic towards which this poll is heavily weighted, the trend line will continue even more sharply; and b) with the under-representation of junior enlisted servicemembers, women and minorities, it's a virtual certainty that opposition to openly gay servicemembers within the ranks is far less than the 51% indicated by this unscientific poll.
Of course, so long as Military Times continues to use its unreliable methodology, we won't be able to know for sure. Perhaps in the study proposed by SECDEF Gates, an actual scientific poll of servicemembers with a random sample that reflects the actual demographic make-up of the military will be conducted. I'd put dollars to donuts that if such a poll were conducted, support for DADT comes in below 40%.
Today, the Veteran community and Americans across the country lost a valued public servant. Congressman John Murtha passed away after experiencing complications that resulted from gallbladder surgery. Murtha served in the United States Marine Corps as an enlisted man and later a commissioned officer. During his service in Vietnam, he was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor and two Purple Hearts. He would later become the first Vietnam War Veteran elected to Congress.
It seems that whenever one of my esteemed Senators makes the news, it isn't good. For example, last week Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) particularly made a fool of himself during the Armed Services Committee Hearing on DADT by insinuating that Admiral Mullen would be playing politics. Of course, that earned him a strong rebuke from the Admiral.
Also getting his name in the papers this week is the Senior Senator from Yellowhammer State, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Senator Shelby is throwing himself a fit over a couple of pork projects that haven't been approved for our state:
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) announced that he would block administration nominees from Senate votes in an attempt to secure funding for two defense-related projects for his state. The use of the holding tool is often wielded anonymously. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) complained publicly about Shelby's effort to win tens of millions of dollars in federal money by delaying dozens of nominees from taking up government positions, including some in national security agencies.
[...]
Shelby is seeking funds for the KC-135 Air Force tanker fleet, a project that could generate thousands of jobs in Alabama. He is also demanding that the administration restore funding cut from the budget for the FBI's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, a facility to test defenses against the improvised bombs used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shelby placed the hold because of "unaddressed national security concerns," according to a statement released by his office. He "has made the administration aware of these concerns and is willing to discuss them at any time." The statement said Shelby was holding up "several" nominees, but the White House and Reid's office placed the number at more than 70.
One troubling aspect of this report is that Senator Shelby may be holding up national security related nominees. The quote above states that he has done so, and a similar statement was made by the White House blog.
As Senator Shelby's constituent, I have called his offices in Washington as well as in my fare city to find out if this is so. As of yet, I have not received a response.
The other troubling point in this story is Shelby's attempt to secure funds for the mentioned tanker fleet. The Senator is attempting to have funds appropriated to build a facility in Mobile for the manufacture of the new Air Force tanker, a project that has suffered from corruption and a lack of transparency as I have criticized in the past. If the facility were built in Mobile, French manufacturer Airbus would be able to obtain the contract over the American company Boeing. While such a project would bring a few jobs to our state, these would be low-level assembly line jobs with more technical and specialized work being done at Airbus facilities in Europe.
So, to simplify the situation, here is what's going on: Senator Richard Shelby is obstructing all Administration nominations (including any to DoD, DHS, VA, and State) so that a French company that would ship American jobs overseas can receive a contract for a U.S. Air Force project.
Forgot to post this, but last week I received my payment from DFAS compensating me for the 12 months I spent stop-lossed in 2007/2008. That worked out to a pretty good chunk of change, so it's hard to complain. But really, I filed my application almost five months ago, and I just now get a check? Ridiculous. If I e-filed my taxes this week, I'd have my return by next Friday. DFAS has a much smaller pool to work with, and knows exactly who has been stop-lossed. If the IRS can do something right, there is no reason DFAS shouldn't be able to do it just as well.
The Pentagon has ordered that emergency contraception drugs be made available at all U.S. military installations worldwide:
The decision follows a recommendation by an independent panel of doctors and pharmacists in November, said Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith. The panel determined that emergency contraception should be added to the military's list of medications that must be stocked at each military facility.
[...]
The drug, which contains a high dose of birth control pills, can be used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex by blocking ovulation or fertilization. Critics of the contraceptive say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
There will be the inevitable chorus of feigned outrage from the right on this. However, here are some facts of life: a) troops have sex; b) sometimes, condoms don't work; and the most unfortunate of reasons c) sexual assault happens in the military.
Now, women who serve in the American uniform across the world will have the same resources for reproductive health as any other American woman. Kudos, DoD.
ISTANBUL -- The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, whose gloomy assessment of the war last summer prompted the White House to boost troop levels, said Thursday that conditions are no longer deteriorating and predicted further improvements this year.
"I am not prepared to say that we have turned the corner," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal told a group of U.S. reporters during a NATO conference here. "I'm not prepared to say we are winning. I am prepared to say we are very much engaged, and I'm confident we're going to see serious progress this year."
So going on nine years into the conflict, we've gone from several years of continual decline to a stalemate. That's progress, I guess.
Since the President's State of the Union speech and the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SECDEF this week, I have seen several opponents of the repeal (here's one) invoke a petition sent to President Obama last year from 1,150 retired flag officers opposed to a repeal of the policy.
I think it's important to point out that the credibility of that petition has already been essentially destroyed by my predecessor:
decided I'd do some critical analysis of the list of those who'd signed the letter. I wanted to know who these military leaders were. But because the list is so huge, I knew I couldn't quickly compile information on each officer. So I decided to look at the first--and most senior--group of signers: The 47 four-star generals and admirals on the list.
What I found wasn't surprising at all. If the 47 senior officers on the list are representative of the other thousand, then the letter has been signed by exactly what I suspected: A large group of distinguished, older, retired military officers who entered the service between World War Two and Vietnam--and who largely left the service prior to the 21st century and the modern military era.
As it turns out, no four-star officer on the list entered the military after 1969--over three decades before I led my own infantry platoon into combat in Afghanistan as a young lieutenant. In fact, all but four of the officers were in the service before Vietnam even started. Eight of the 47 joined the military during World War Two--at the same time as my grandparents. And the remaining 35 joined between the end of WWII and the beginning of Vietnam--in an era not known for its receptiveness to homosexuality, especially in the military.
But, more important than the fact that these officers entered the service over 40 years ago--in the middle of the 20th century--is the reality that the vast majority never served with troops of the modern era. Fully two-thirds of the four-stars on the list retired before the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was even enacted in 1993. 41 of the 47 on the list never wore a uniform during this century, and only four of the 47 retired four-star generals--Magnus included--were still in the service on 9/11.
The fact is, while they've certainly earned the right to express their opinions, this group of older, retired officers is largely out of touch with current cultural norms and what constitutes "mainstream" in 2009--and they certainly don't speak for those who've served overseas in the years since 9/11. While many are combat heroes themselves, their experiences range from Korea to Desert Storm. But not one of the 47 four-stars on that list has ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan with today's military, much less had to depend on one of the 58 gay Arabic translators fired in 2007 alone. These officers were brought up in a draft military at a time when open homosexuality was typically viewed as deviant--unlike today, when 81 percent of Americans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
Another important point is that we ultimately learned that one of the General Officers on the list, General (Ret.) Louis C. Menetrey, was actually deceased at the time he "signed" the petition, and had been incapacitated with Alzheimer's since 2003. His widow used a power of attorney to attach his name to the petition.
Keep all this in mind whenever you hear the talking point that "1,150 flag officers oppose a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
VoteVets.org, the largest progressive group of Veterans in America is launching a $2 million ad campaign in seven states, as well as the nation's capital pushing for a comprehensive energy bill that will cut our dependence on oil, and calling out those who are putting contributions from oil interests above America's interest.
This version of the ad is targeted at all nationally elected officials and will run in Washington, DC:
This version of the ad will run in Kentucky, with alternate versions running in several other states:
The campaign was launched days after the oil industry revealed that it spent $154 million lobbying Congress in 2009-much of it in opposition to comprehensive energy legislation.
"The fight to get off Middle East oil is a matter of life and death for those of us who serve this country," said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Every day Congress delays action is another day they are siding with oil companies and against our veterans," continued Soltz.
The ads use the so-called "Christmas Bomber," Umar Abdulmutallab, as a reminder that terrorists continue to target America, and that every day we continue our dependence on Middle East Oil, we continue to send money to nations with ties to terror. Yet many in Congress seem more interested in taking oil money from companies that do business in countries with ties to terror than they are in support a bipartisan effort to cut our dependence on oil and reduce pollution.
The state-based ads, which feature local veterans, are running in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, South Dakota and Wyoming. Most of these ads call out specific Members of Congress for taking thousands of dollars from oil companies, while opposing comprehensive energy legislation.
The Senators targeted in the ads have taken nearly a half million dollars from oil companies who do business in these countries - oil companies that oppose moving America to a clean energy economy that could get the United States on the track to true energy independence.
When President Clinton tried to eliminate the ban on gay servicemembers in the military, then Joint Chiefs Chair General Colin Powell opposed the idea, stating that it would threaten good order and discipline. Instead, he proposed the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy which has led to an unnecessary drain on personnel and treasure.
Today, General (Ret) Powell, who served as Secretary of State under George W. Bush, echoed the sentiments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, also a Bush appointee, and current Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen, in stating that the policy has worn out its welcome:
"In the almost 17 years since the 'don't ask, don't tell' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed," General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: "I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen."
With support dwindling for the policy, with anyone who has credibility on the subject calling for its demise, with a lack of any credible evidence as to its effectiveness and overwhelming evidence pointing to its detrimental effects on our readiness and security, there is absolutely no reason for its continued enforcement or existence.
Washington (CNN) -- Senior Obama administration officials revealed late Tuesday they've secretly gained the cooperation of family members of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab to help get the Christmas Day airline bomb suspect talking.
The cooperation effort has led to actionable intelligence that could help prevent terror attempts on U.S. soil, the senior officials said.
[...]
The senior administration officials disclosed that on January 1, just days after the attempted terror attack, two FBI agents secretly flew to Lagos, Nigeria, to meet with officials of the CIA and the State Department. They began an extensive investigation and tried to work with AbdulMutallab's family in hopes of gaining his cooperation.
The U.S. officials later traveled to Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, and eventually gained the trust of two unidentified relatives of the suspect.
On January 17, the FBI agents secretly flew back to the U.S. with the two relatives in order to work with the suspect.
One senior Obama administration official said the family members privately conveyed to the suspect they "had complete trust in the U.S. system" and they believed he "would be treated fairly" by the Obama administration.
Silly me, I thought only torture techniques like water boarding, slamming into walls, sleep deprivation for 180 hours, placement in insect boxes or food deprivation above 1,000 calories a day could get a suspected al Queda terrorist to give reliable intelligence.
Who would have thought that building trust with a person, rather than smacking them around Jack Bauer style, would get them to talk?
When Admiral Mike Mullen reentered Room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building this afternoon, he was no doubt exhausted from number crunching and being berated over issues outside his purview before the Senate Armed Services Committee most of the morning. He could have assumed any number of tactics for the controversial hearing that would follow. When questioned about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" he could have deferred to the civilian Pentagon leadership who are concerned with such policies. He could have noted that he serves at the pleasure at the Commander-in-Chief and would accomplish any mission given to him by the President. He could have said that military commanders will follow whatever statutory guidance is given to him by the Congress. He could have stated that more study is needed on the ramifications of the repeal.
But that's not what Admiral Mike Mullen did, because Mike Mullen did not put on his uniform this morning to be indecisive.
Admiral Mike Mullen put on his uniform, affixed his rank, awards and accouterments, and walked into that hearing room this morning for the same reason he has worn the uniform nearly every day since he first entered military service as a junior officer in the United States Navy in 1968.
Admiral Mullen wears his uniform, because he is a leader, and that's what Admiral Mullen decided to be in that hearing today.
Admiral Mike Mullen had to know that those who, during debates on war policy, exalted the opinion of military commanders as gospel not to be challenged, would suddenly find it their charge to tear down the highest ranking military officer in our armed forces. Likewise, he must have known that there would be a faction within the ranks that would not support such a decision.
But Admiral Mullen also had to know a couple of other things.
First, that the United States is defended by the most professional and most disciplined men and women in the world, and that a force of such character is what allows the military to function everyday with little incident, regardless of the prejudices of those within.
Second, Admiral Mike Mullen knows that servicemembers will follow a commander who is willing to lead. Each day, there are troops in our force who have internal disagreements with the decisions of their superiors. Those same individuals, are willing to follow leaders who exude confidence and candor, in a way they would not follow someone who they might agree with, yet displays shaky determination. Admiral Mullen had to know that given a proper leader, a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine will follow to the gates of Hell on nothing more than that very commanders leadership.
In all likelihood, Admiral Mike Mullen didn't have a choice when he took his seat before the committee this morning. After 41 years of military service, Mike Mullen doesn't chose to be a leader. Mike Mullen is a leader. Consequently, Mike Mullen did the only thing he knows how to do. Mike Mullen led. There is no doubt, that those under his command will follow him. The only question is whether the politicians who oppose him-- who showed nothing but weakness and a lack of faith in the professionalism of the men and women who ensure their peaceful sleep each night, possess the intestinal fortitude to follow.
As I write this, Secretary Gates is getting beat up by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the mirandization of Abdulmutallab and his trial in civilian courts. I'm not sure why, as this is a budget hearing for DoD, and this case is clearly in the realm of the Department of Justice. But Gates is getting beat up over it anyway. Senators are implying that more information could be gathered had Abdulmutallab not been read his rights.
One problem: There is no requirement to mirandize a suspect if there is knowledge of a pending crime, and Abdulmutallab was not mirandized until after he stopped giving information:
"It was a (law enforcement) community-wide conference, and they discussed a number of things," one source said on condition of anonymity. "That's when decisions were made on which course was going to proceed, to Mirandize him or otherwise."
The source said that Abdulmutallab was not read his rights until he made it clear that he was not going to say anything else.
[...]
FBI agents questioned him at the hospital for just under an hour. They did not give him the Miranda warning - which advises suspects that anything they say can be used against them at trial - citing an exemption that allows them first to seek crucial information on any pending crime.
During that questioning, one source said, Abdulmutallab suggested that other terror attempts were in the works. "He was making comments like, 'Others were following me.' And that is a circumstance where you've got a potential disaster, that there are others out there and you don't have to Mirandize him right away."
[...]
When Abdulmutallab awakened, a second team of FBI agents was sent in. Authorities believed he might be willing to say even more to the second set of agents.
"We had to see if he was still willing to talk," another source said. "And it was pretty quickly apparent to them that he wasn't. He had had a change of mind. It was only after establishing that with some confidence that they decided to go ahead and Mirandize him."
But by that time, the second source said, "we had already talked to him for almost an hour and he provided a lot of information."
So what did we lose by mirandizing Abdulmutallab? Absolutely nothing. STFU critics.
Gen. (Ret.) John P. Jumper, former Air Force Chief of Staff, addresses the audience during the MQ-9 Reaper exhibit opening at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Jan. 25, 2010. (U.S. Air Force photo)
For 17 years, our military has practiced an indefensible policy known as "Don't ask, Don't tell", which prohibits gay Americans from serving in our Armed Forces with integrity. In those 17 years, 14,000 qualified men and women who have worn the uniform of our nation have been removed from service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. In the year since the current Commander-in-Chief assumed that office, 644 such Americans have been discharged. Total cost of the discharge of these 14,000 servicemembers has cost the American tax-payer between $140 million and $535 million.
A Williams Institute study has found that the policy has resulted in a lack of retention of 4,000 servicemembers each year since the policy was implemented. The nature of the policy fosters distrust and a lack of integrity amongst comrades. It hinders unit cohesion and combat readiness by removing qualified members of a team from service in the middle of the training and/or deployment cycle. It robs the American Armed Forces of individuals qualified to operate in mission critical occupational specialties, again, for no other reason than their sexual orientation.
Meanwhile, American servicemembers, who have been told allowing gays to serve openly alongside them would harm their morale, have served alongside CIA, DIA, FBI, USAID, and other federal agencies which have no such ban on employment within thier organizations. Those same servicemembers serve alongside the militaries of other nations in the Combined/Joint combat environment who allow homosexual military service with no threat to good order and discipline. Thirty-one other nations allow open homosexual service in their militaries. Would opponents of a repeal of DADT have us believe as Americans, or tell American servicemembers to their faces, that they believe their professionalism to be inferior to that of the militaries of nations like Estonia, Slovenia, and Uruguay?
For 17 years, this failed policy has existed as statutory discrimination and harmed the cohesion and readiness of the units and organizations charged with the protection of our lives and way of life. For 17 years, this policy has gone unchallenged by members of Congress.
Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chair Jon Soltz is attending the hearing today. You can follow his live tweets on the proceedings: @jonsoltz. You can also follow my tweets as I watch the hearing, which will be significantly more irreverent and less informative: @rockrichard.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy that removes brave, qualified American servicemembers from their jobs in service to their country. It would appear that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) thinks that gays who have served their country and been removed from service are either not people, or are un-American:
Boehner predicted that any action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" and "do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work."
Repealing DADT would allow qualified gay troops who have been discharged as a result of the failed, discriminatory policy to return to work. It would also allow qualified gay Americans who have heard the call to service in uniform to serve their country without sacrificing their integrity.
As best I can tell, either John Boehner doesn't really want Americans to have jobs in a field in which they are qualified to serve, he doesn't think gays are real Americans, or he doesn't think they are people.
What the Minority Leader fails to realize, however, is that there is nothing more American than the fight against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Gay Americans want nothing more than to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as the saying goes. That's why they are fighting this discriminatory policy, which places no faith in the professionalism of our military. Indeed, nothing is more American than going out and fighting for the job you want, or seeking to right an injustice that prevents the best person qualified for a job from getting it. Nothing is more American than insuring our national security is preserved to its fullest measure, rather than cowering behind irrational fears. Gays are fighting against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because as patriotic Americans, there is nothing else they could do. And that's why, as patriotic Americans, we must fight to end this deplorable policy as well. It's not a "gay" fight. It's an American fight.
WaPo reports that the decision is made and the terrorist trials won't be held in New York City. Traditional media is spinning it as a "set back" for the Administration. I really don't get why. KSM and other conspirators will be tried in civilian courts, as they should be, and not in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. Sounds like a win for the Administration to me.
After New York Governor David Patterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have expressed displeasure with the idea of Khalid Sheik Muhammad and other terrorism trials being held in the Federal Court located in Manhattan, it appears the Administration might be considering moving the trial. Here is a surprise for you: I kind of agree.
To understand why, first we have to look at Mayor Bloomberg's objections:
Mr. Bloomberg said that a more secure location, like a military base, would be less disruptive and less costly. His remarks echoed growing opposition from Wall Street executives, the real estate industry and neighborhood groups, who have questioned the burdens that such a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city.
"It's going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference in Brooklyn. "My hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind."
The objections aren't pant-wetting hysteria about New York City becoming a target for terrorism yet again, or KSM's seductive voice being given a microphone to speak in tongues that will immediately convert anyone who hears him to militant Islam, or the need to try him without due process in a military tribunal.
The objections are fiscal. The city of New York will have to spend a lot of money for the Federal Government's trial. If there is a way that a Federal civilian court could convene for the trial outside the city, that might be a better idea.
I'm not saying I'm completely on the Mayor's side on this. But I have to admit he has a point, and if his requests can be met while still trying KSM and other detainees in the federal court system, it may be worth looking at. Of course, I'm open to debate on this.
During the surge in Iraq, one of the most successful developments was that of the "Sons of Iraq" program, in which communities in Anbar province "awakened" and pledged to fight against the insurgency. This was mostly reported in traditional media as being a spontanious decision to support the Iraqi government and repudiate fighters of a group referred to in Western media as "al-Qaeda in Iraq", although the group never used that title. What was under reported was that the reaction was not spontaneous at all. The "Sons of Iraq" actually operated under a deal with Coalition Forces in which Iraqi's, some of which had previously battled the coalition, were paid and armed by the United States to fight the insurgency and received a promise to be later integrated into the Iraqi Security Forces.
I'm not saying this was a bad plan. Of course, the plan had to be sold as an "awakening", as much of the Defense community, which at the time was not sold on this new "counterinsurgency" stuff, would not have signed off on paying and arming fighters who previously fought and killed Americans.
The follow-up by the Iraqi government on the integration promise hasn't panned out perfectly, but for our end of the deal it worked. The Sons of Iraq program did reduce violence in their areas of operation.
Now, it appears a similar movement is occurring with the Shinwari tribe in the area of Nangahar Province in Afghanistan. The 400,000 member Shinwari tribe has pledged to fight the Taliban and will, in exchange, receive $1 million in development from the United States. This money will go directly to the Shinwari community by-passing the Karzai corruption machine.
The Shinwari anger with the Taliban insurgency isn't a new development. Like most of the Afghan population, while they do not necessarily support foreign occupation, they hate the Taliban even more:
By contrast, in this part of Afghanistan tribal loyalties are strong and the tension between the Shinwaris and the Taliban longstanding. The conflict came to a head last July, when two Shinwari elders - Mr. Niaz and Malik Usman - insisted that a local Taliban commander named Kona stay away from a group of Afghan engineers who were building a dike in their valley. When Kona's men kidnapped two of the engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough.
In a confrontation that followed, members from the two Shinwari subtribes killed a senior Taliban commander who had come from Pakistan and chased Kona back across the border. After that, Mr. Niaz and Mr. Usman set up a local militia to keep the Taliban out of the valley, called Momand.
"The whole tribe was with me," Mr. Niaz said in an interview in November. "The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them."
[...]
Among other things, the tribal elders declared harsh penalties against Taliban sympathizers, including huge fines and expulsion from the area.
"The shura authorizes the burning of residences of those found harboring the Taliban," the proclamation said.
Safe to say, these guys are pissed and they aren't playing around with the insurgency anymore.
Spencer is suspicious of the idea of the Coalition engaging in tribal politics, especially given the history of warlordism in Afghanistan and a Coalition that views the concept as foreign. I disagree. With a government as corrupt as that of Hamid Karzai, there is really no other option until that government reforms. A legitimate partner is essential to fighting a counterinsurgency. A lack of legitimacy in Kabul, combined with the tribal nature of Afghan society which itself lends to distrust of a central Afghan state, makes turning tribes and local governments our best option for success. Doubt it? Look no further than the statement of the Shinwari themselves, a tribe that has just pledged allegiance to the government in Kabul:
But the Shinwari elders did not merely declare their opposition to the Taliban. Although they declared their allegiance to the Afghan government, they directed at it a nearly equal measure of fury, condemning "all the corruption and illegal activities that threaten the Afghan people."
"We are doing this for ourselves, and ourselves only," said Hajji Kafta, one of the elders. "We have absolutely no faith in the Afghan government to do anything for us. We don't trust them at all."
Absent an about face on corruption from Karzai, or a new Government all together, playing tribal politics is looking pretty good to me.
"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.
When President Clinton tried to eliminate the ban on gay servicemembers in the military, then Joint Chiefs Chair General Colin Powell opposed the idea, stating that it would threaten good order and discipline. Instead, he proposed the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy which has led to an 
When Admiral Mike Mullen reentered Room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building this afternoon, he was no doubt exhausted from number crunching and being berated over issues outside his purview before the Senate Armed Services Committee most of the morning. He could have assumed any number of tactics for the controversial hearing that would follow. When questioned about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" he could have deferred to the civilian Pentagon leadership who are concerned with such policies. He could have noted that he serves at the pleasure at the Commander-in-Chief and would accomplish any mission given to him by the President. He could have said that military commanders will follow whatever statutory guidance is given to him by the Congress. He could have stated that more study is needed on the ramifications of the repeal.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy that removes brave, qualified American servicemembers from their jobs in service to their country. It would appear that House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) thinks that gays who have served their country and been removed from service are either 
