Stars and Stripes' Jeff Schogol reports that very few who are entitled to retroactive stop-loss pay have received their entitlement:
The end of the retroactive stop-loss pay program is fast approaching, but in the nine months the program has been in effect only a small fraction of eligible troops have received compensation.
Those who were stop-lossed between September 2001 and September 2008 can get $500 for every month they were kept beyond their initial separation date. But of the roughly 145,000 people eligible for the money, only about 30,000 claims have been paid, defense officials said. The program ends on Oct. 21, but many veterans simply don't know it exists.
So here I am doing my due diligence. Folks, if you were stop-lossed in the eligible period, fill out a claim and get your money. You've only got three months left before you won't ever be able to get it again. I got my $5,500 check with very few hiccups. It took a little while, but it's better than never, which is when you'll be getting it if you don't apply by October 21st.
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A second U.S. Navy Sailor who went missing in a dangerous part of eastern Afghanistan was found dead and his body recovered, a senior U.S. military official and Afghan officials said Thursday.
The family of Petty Officer 3rd Class Jarod Newlove, a 25-year-old from the Seattle area, had been notified of his death, the U.S. military official said on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to disclose the information.
More thoughts and/or prayers go out to Petty Officer Newlove's family.
An Air Force cargo plane flying a training mission crashed in flames on Wednesday evening at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, but military officials gave no immediate word on the fate of the four crew members.
The cargo aircraft, a C-17 Globemaster, was assigned to the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf, a unit consisting of 6,000 Air Force personnel who fly fighter jets and other military aircraft.
The plane crashed at 6:14 p.m. local time in a wooded area near the runway. A smoky plume over the area was visible to nearby residents.
Pressure works. Influential organizations and individuals often fail to make the right decisions without pressure from their constituency. Such was the case today when I came across this on Stars and Stripes:
If you can't tell this is the image that appears in the bottom right:
Now, normally, I love Stars and Stripes. There is a reason they get a ton of links on our front page. They consistently provide some of the best, most objective reporting on military and Veterans issues in American media. Don't take my work for it. Stars and Stripes recently won a Polk Award for their reporting on the Pentagon using "a public relations company to profile journalists and steer them toward positive coverage of the war in Afghanistan." Those guys are good.
So it was with a heavy heart that I contacted an associate at the paper asking why the image above appeared on the front page of such a respected media outlet.
Now, I have no problem with Stripes putting something like that on their front page. Representing all reasonable points of view is certainly an admirable endeavor for any journalistic organization. But that was exactly the problem. There was no balance provided for the incredibly absurd and bigoted letter to the editor highlighted on Stripes' online front page. Excerpts below:
Ending "don't ask, don't tell" will have a devastating effect on readiness, recruitment and retention, and will destroy cohesion within the ranks.
Now I will no longer be allowed to freely exercise my religious beliefs. Jude and Paul clearly condemned homosexual behavior as sinful (Jude 7, Romans 1:26-27). Throughout history many philosophers and ethicists, back to the ancient Egyptians, have recognized that homosexuality is deviant, anti-social, anti-family and even perverted.
[Adm. Mike Mullen] seems to be saying that there is no longer any room in the military for people who believe in traditional morality. This isn't about homosexuals being allowed to serve. It is about the members of a radical political movement wanting the full power of the federal government behind them so they can criminalize and eradicate dissent. We who hold onto traditional family values may soon be persecuted. Who are they to impose their immorality upon me?
My associate at Stripes put me in touch with, Howard Witt, the Senior Managing Editor at Stripes, who sent me the following response:
We elected to highlight the letter on our front page because it was generating a lot of robust commentary from readers, both for and against the DADT law. We are not promoting one side or the other in the debate over the fate of DADT. In fact, if you assess the tenor of most of the comments attached to that letter, the vast majority are sharply critical of the letter writer's "anti-repeal" sentiments. So while you claim that we are taking the "anti-repeal" side by highlighting that letter, someone else could just as easily criticize us for highlighting a "pro-repeal" comment thread. Bottom line: We are strictly neutral on the issue. We just wanted to point readers to a lively debate.
Highlighting an article because of the debate contained within is fair enough. I could argue that it still isn't exactly objective, as the likelihood of readers actually reading beyond the letter to the comments is slim for most. But I trust that Mr. Witt's intentions were good. I have no reason to believe otherwise. The problem is, that debate wasn't happening on the front page of Stars and Stripes, or even mentioned. The "debate" was highlighted with this image and teaser:
I followed up with Mr. Witt with this concern and attached a copy of the screenshot above. I've got to give Mr. Witt and Stripes credit. I received this response from him and a change on the front page of the online edition of Stars and Stripes:
You're right, it's not worded as well as it could be. I've just updated
that teaser. Thanks for the suggestion.
Our traditional media outlets, even those we most respect, don't get it right all the time. For Fox News some it's purposeful. For Stars and Stripes others it is with good intentions. But they all sometimes need a nudge in the right direction.
This scenario illustrates the importance of citizen journalism. I had already started writing a piece that was highly critical of Stripes for giving legitimacy to a bigoted Lieutenant without providing balance. But pressure influenced a biased frame and corrected it to an objective one. That illustrates importance of our mission, and how our actions can affect the biased narratives that can arise.
We can't rely on the traditional media, even the respected outlets, to present objective frames on their own. If we don't provide the needed pressure, our decisions will be made for us by those who often need help to get it right.
LONDON -- WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief claims his organization doesn't know who sent it some 91,000 secret U.S. military documents, telling journalists that the website was set up to hide the source of its data from those who receive it.
Julian Assange didn't say whether he meant that he had no idea who leaked the documents, or whether his organization simply could not be sure. But he did say the added layer of secrecy helped protect the site's sources from spy agencies and hostile corporations.
"We never know the source of the leak," he told journalists gathered at London's Frontline Club late Tuesday. "Our whole system is designed such that we don't have to keep that secret."
This is a disregard for journalistic standards of the highest level. How can anyone take this guy seriously?
Look, I don't mean to say these documents are fake. In fact, I know for a fact some of them are real because I saw them three years ago when I was in theater. But they do lack context. A SIGACTs report in the leaked documents may contain statements of what troops on the ground thought to be true at the time, but was later found to be false. We can't be sure of things like that when we mine raw, unvetted data for answers.
The fact that Wikileaks doesn't even know their source indicates that the organization could not have vetted the data or sought to contextualize it even if it wanted to. Consequently, anything that comes out of Wikileaks is suspect.
When a company receives a contract to manufacture body armor to protect service members in harms way, I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation that the money that firm receives be used to build the best product possible for the price. David H. Brooks, former CEO of the leading provider of Interceptor body armor to the Department of Defense, would appear to disagree. He apparently had some interesting ideas about what counts as overhead:
Using the company coffers -- which were flush with Pentagon money -- Brooks allegedly bought gifts for his family, including pornographic videos for his son, plastic surgery for his wife and textbooks for his daughter. He also bought luxury cars, country club memberships and a stable full of racehorses.
The prostitutes? They were to boost morale. From the NYT:
His lawyers also defended the hiring of prostitutes for employees and board members, arguing in court papers that it represented a legitimate business expense "if Mr. Brooks thought such services could motivate his employees and make them more productive."
And then there's the belt buckle, which prosecutors have reportedly been waving around in the courtroom: $100,000 worth of diamonds, rubies and sapphires in the shape of the American flag.
And there's more: Brooks spent $10 million on his daughter's bat mitzvah, hiring 50 Cent, Tom Petty and Aerosmith to perform. The leather-bound invitations cost $40,000 alone.
How many more/better IBAs could DHB (Brooks's company) have provided to our troops if he wasn't on a hedonistic spending spree? I say throw away the key.
One of two U.S. sailors missing in Afghanistan since last week has been confirmed dead and his body recovered, a NATO spokesman said Tuesday.
The search continues for the other missing sailor, said Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman for NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The two Navy personnel went missing Friday in the eastern province of Logar, after an armored sport utility vehicle was seen driving into a Taliban-held area. NATO officials were unable to say what they were doing in such a dangerous part of eastern Afghanistan.
I don't know what else to add to this. Like all of our K.I.A.'s, this just sucks.
I'm not going to go into the back story on the Wikileaks release of classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan from 2004-2009. You've probably already read plenty. I'm also not going to tell you what I think of what's in them. What I am going to tell you is why I'm not going to do that, and why no one else should either.
I'm not going to offer analysis on the release of classified documents, something that never should have happened in the first place (things are classified for a reason) because I haven't read them. This release came over the weekend. Its Monday. There are 91,000 documents. It would be irresponsible to offer judgment on something I haven't read. That's why it blows my mind that so many are passing judgment already. With you readers as my witness, I swear that if anyone who has offered criticism of the documents has legitimately read all of them in their entirety, I will give up writing and never be heard from again.
And even if anyone has read them, these documents do not contain high level vetted analysis. From what I understand, these are raw reports, unrevised as events were further investigated. I'd like to know how much fact checking Wikileaks has done to determine the veracity of the information contained within. My guess is little to none.
So, this is my message to my contemporaries: let this thing play out. Maybe their are a long list of atrocities in there. I hope not, but I suppose it's possible. The fact is, right now I don't know and neither does anyone who is currently writing about it (a statement I will retract if Wikileaks has fact checked the documents. I don't anticipate having to take that step). Let's just all cool off and see where this thing goes. Otherwise, those offering criticism may end up eating crow.
A year and a half after his inauguration, Obama has failed to deliver on a key counterterrorism goal: to close Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, with new revelations about a secret prison in Bagram, proposals to legalize indefinite detention, and the festering debates about where to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, questions about how and where we should hold detainees remain contentious. This panel will revisit these questions and discuss ways to close Gitmo and return to the rule of law in our detainee treatment.
Matthew Alexander
Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) is a former senior military interrogator and author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. He led the interrogation team in Iraq that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader, who was killed in a subsequent airstrike. He has conducted or supervised more than 1,300 interrogations. He appears frequently on television and radio as an expert on interrogations and counterterrorism and has published Op-Eds in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, as well as articles in The National Interest, The Daily Beast, Small Wars Journal, The Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has been featured in Time Magazine as well as other U.S. and foreign publications. Alexander's television appearances include The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN International, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC News, Fox News, ABC's Nightline, and the CBS Evening News. He has consulted/briefed the U.S. Secret Service, the United States Marines, the US Army, United States Military Academy, numerous universities, and private contractors who train the CIA and FBI. He is currently a Fellows for the Open Society Institute.
Adam Sewer
Adam Serwer is a Staff Writer at the American Prospect. He writes mostly on issues of civil and human rights, criminal justice, and national security.
Marcy Wheeler
Marcy Wheeler blogs as "emptywheel" at FireDogLake.com, and also for the Campaign for America's Future. She is best known for her book, Anatomy of Deceit, which served as a primer of the CIA Leak case, and her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial. She has covered efforts to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its illegal warrantless wiretapping and torture programs. Wheeler has a PhD from the University of Michigan and has spoken on blogging and politics at Amherst College, Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities and Duke Law School. She was recently awarded the 2009 Hillman Prize for Blog Journalism.
Rep. Jerry Nadler
Congressman Jerrold "Jerry" Nadler represents the Eighth Congressional district of New York. New York's Eighth, one of the nation's most diverse districts, includes parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Nadler began his political career in 1976 in the New York State Assembly, where he served for 16 years. In 1992, Nadler was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election and has served in Congress ever since. He was re-elected to his ninth full term in 2008.
Nadler serves as the Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In that capacity, he has chaired numerous hearings, directed many investigations, and introduced a significant body of legislation on a range of civil rights issues. Among the bills he has recently introduced are the State Secrets Protection Act, the National Security Letters Reform Act, the Respect for Marriage Act, and the Uniting American Families Act. He is also a senior Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Vincent Warren
Vincent Warren is the Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a national legal and educational organization dedicated to advancing and defending the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Vince oversees CCR's groundbreaking litigation and advocacy work which includes combating the illegal expansion of presidential power and policies such as illegal detention at Guantanamo, rendition, torture and warrantless wiretapping; holding corporations and government officials accountable for human rights abuses; and, challenging racial injustice and mass incarceration. Vince has spearheaded a public campaign, "Beyond Guantanamo: Rescue the Constitution" coinciding with CCR's landmark Supreme Court victory in Al Odah v. U.S. and Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus. Prior to his tenure at CCR, Vince held the position of national senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where he led constitutional and impact litigation to advance civil rights and liberties. Among the cases he has litigated are: • Gratz v. Bollinger, companion case to the landmark Supreme Court decision to uphold affirmative action in college admissions. • Dasrath v. Continental Airlines on behalf of plaintiffs removed from an airplane shortly after 9/11 because they were perceived to be Arab or Muslim, and • White v. Martz, a class action lawsuit which helped create Montana's first statewide public defender system. He also monitored South Africa's historic Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings and worked as a criminal defense attorney for the Brooklyn Legal Aid Society. Vince holds a law degree from Rutgers School of Law and a B.A. from Haverford College. Vince is a frequent national cable, network and independent media commentator, having appeared on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, CNN's The Situation Room and Paula Zahn Now, Democracy Now! and numerous National Public Radio programs.
This has been out there for a while, but it feels good to see it in black and white:
President Obama has nominated Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis to serve as commander of U.S. Central Command, the Defense Department announced Wednesday.
Mattis is currently serving as commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates selected Mattis for the post on the heels of the Senate's June 30 confirmation of Army Gen. David Petraeus as the new Afghanistan war commander, which ended his tenure as CENTCOM chief.
It was believed that Mattis would retire when he was passed over for the Commandant of the Marine Corps job that went to James Amos. Then Stan McChrystal threw back a few Bud Light Limes and let his staff act a little to loose lipped and so began the musical chairs of four-star commands.
Everyone in the CENTCOM AO is going to benefit from James Mattis sticking around for another tour. He's a warrior's warrior, but also cerebral enough to understand the nuances of combat with an insurgency. It was Mattis who said it was fun to shoot the Taliban (something he's gotten heat for from people who didn't listen to the entire quote in context), but it was also Mattis who said "engage your brain before you engage your weapon".
This is a good thing, and Mattis is an outstanding leader.
As you read this, I'll be getting on a plane to make my way to Las Vegas for the 5th Annual Netroots Nation convention. Netroots Nation is the largest annual gathering of progressive activists in America. Featured speakers this year include Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Schultz, Al Franken and several of the VoteVets.org endorsed candidates.
Among other activities VoteVets will be involved in this weekend, VetVoice front-page contributor Matthew Alexander will be sitting on a panel discussing the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a return to the rule of law. Matthew's panel will be Saturday from 4:45-6:00 PM EST. We'll be streaming the video from the panel here live on that day.
The VoteVets staff and VetVoice contributor delegation this year includes the already mentioned Matthew Alexander, myself, front-page contributor Kate Hoit, VoteVets.org Vice Chair Peter Granato, and Chairman Jon Soltz. We'll also be joined by Mark Star, Program Coordinator for the Vet Voice Foundation (no relation).
If you're going to be in Vegas for the conference, drop a line in the comments and we'll make sure we include you in any VoteVets meet-up activities.
Underpayments of living stipends to veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill will be corrected in August when the Veterans Affairs Department issues one-time catch-up checks to anyone who has received the stipend since Jan. 1.
The checks represent a fix to a problem caused when VA did not update living stipends in January after military housing allowances, on which the stipends are based, increased.
First, the good: Every time there has been a hiccup in the process of administering the post-9/11 G.I. Bill, this Department of Veterans Affairs has been really great about seeing to it that the problem is resolved fairly and in as timely a manner as possible. VA deserves to be commended for that.
Now, the bad: We're coming up on the post-9/11 G.I. Bill's first birthday. Shouldn't the kinks be worked out by now? It's seems to me that we are passed the point where hiccups are acceptable.
Hopefully, VA has it's act together now and we won't see any more problems like this.
We've reported here at length on KBR's complicity in the deaths of American Soldiers as a result of their shotty electrical work on showers. However, KBR isn't just killing troops with electrocution. The company has found other ways to make deployed service members deathly ill:
The day after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Glen Bootay of Pleasant Hills enlisted in the Army. He was fit enough to complete boot camp, advanced combat training and airborne school before he helped coalition troops take control of the Baghdad Airport.
On Tuesday, he needed a walker and assistance to navigate the halls of U.S. District Court, Downtown.
Sitting through a two-hour hearing to determine whether his lawsuit against Houston-based defense contractor KBR Inc. will continue exhausted him, his brother said.
"He's not doing well," Robert Bootay said later.
U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry didn't immediately rule after listening to lawyers' arguments. Bootay is one of at least 140 veterans who have sued KBR for health problems they link to chemical exposure at a water treatment plant in Iraq. The company is contesting the cases.
Glen Bootay, 31, undergoes chemotherapy weekly and takes up to 35 medications daily to treat medical problems that include constant headaches, chest pain, irregular heartbeat, collapse of the lungs, extreme fatigue, skin rashes, inability to sweat, vomiting, numbness, high blood sugar, kidney stones, loss of consciousness and short-term memory loss, according to his lawsuit.
KBR has repeatedly shown negligence and a lack of regard for the lives and/or quality of life of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet somehow, these war profiteers continue to be awarded contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Would we pay millions to the Taliban to kill American troops? Why are paying KBR to do the same?
Conservative military scholar Max Boot articulates what I've been saying for months:
[Afghanistan's rules of engagement have] resulted in a handful of highly publicized cases, recycled many times in news accounts, in which troops complain that they were prevented from calling in badly needed air strikes. It appears likely that McChrystal's broad directives, while well-intentioned, were interpreted too bureaucratically and too narrowly by some units. That is something that General David Petraeus and his operational commander, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, are now studying to determine whether adjustments are necessary.
I'm not pretending that Max Boot stole this idea for me. These are simply the facts and Boot and I, among others, have come to the same conclusion on them-- that is the rational conclusion.
The problem, however, still needs to be fixed. A culture needs to be developed within the ranks where leaders insure that the RoE is understood, with all its nuance, from the regional commander all the way down to the lowest E-1 in a rifle squad. We can't keep dumbing things down to a card that fits in the wallet or breast pocket and expect Soldiers and leaders to then make the most tactically sound decisions. Our Soldiers are intelligent. We have the most professional fighting force in the history of the world. To expect any less of them is an insult to their professionalism and threatens their safety on the battlefield.
Back in May, Fox News, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch and a bunch of foreign oil barons, refused to carry one of our clean energy ads, stating it was "too confusing". As Politico reported yesterday afternoon, Fox News is again rejecting an ad which points out that our dependence on foreign oil is to the detriment of our national security and puts our troops in harms way. This time, however, Fox News did not offer any rationale for rejecting our ad, which features Brigadier General Steven Anderson, Chief of Logistics in Iraq under General Petraeus, pointing out the obvious-- that the clean energy bill currently held up in the Senate will reduce our dependence on countries that aide terrorism.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but Fox News gave up any hint of objectivity over a decade ago.
In a case brought by the Republican Party's LGBT caucus, Major Michael Almy testified Friday to one of the many reasons DADT does not work:
After his tour, he returned to his base in Germany, where he was called to his commander's office and questioned about a dozen personal e-mails he said the Air Force discovered after a service member searched through his computer in Iraq.
Almy said his commander tried to force him to admit he had violated "don't ask, don't tell."
"We went round and round for approximately 20 minutes," Almy testified.
Almy said he never admitted to the military he was gay and was careful to keep his personal life separate from his professional one. Still, after the meeting, Almy was told he was relieved of his duties.
"I was completely devastated," Almy said. "I drove myself home. I took my uniform off and I curled up in the fetal position on my bathroom floor like a baby and bawled for several hours."
Even if you are gay and abide by DoD's ridiculous policy which harms combat readiness and unit cohesion, you can still be fired for being gay, despite what ever needed competency and leadership ability you may possess. The notion proposed by some that gays are free to serve as long as they do not admit to their conduct, irrespective of the fact that such a policy is incompatible with the military value of integrity, is simply a fallacy.
Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June, making it the worst month on record for Army suicides, the service said Thursday.
There were 32 confirmed or suspected suicides among soldiers in June, including 21 among active-duty troops and 11 among National Guard or Reserve forces, according to Army statistics.
Seven soldiers killed themselves while in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan in June, according to the statistics. Of the total suicides, 22 soldiers had been in combat, including 10 who had deployed two to four times.
Suicides have been a problem in the Army in recent years, not surprisingly. Optempo is not slowing down and the Army culture isn't going to change over night. Unfortunately, as much as I hope it does, I don't see this getting better any time soon.
Three years ago, I had never met anyone from VoteVets.org. I was just a paratrooper and noncommissioned officer in Afghanistan frustrated at playing whac-a-mole in the deserts of Helmand Province while resources were being thrown at an unnecessary conflict two countries to the West. I started writing about my experiences and posting them on different progressive blogs, where I "met" (virtually, that is) a Vet writer, Brandon Friedman, who was working for a progressive organization for Veterans and was in the process of establishing a community blog.
A few months later, still in Afghanistan, I e-mailed friends that I was establishing my own blog, rather than continue to post on other sites and invited them to come visit. Brandon responded that if I wanted a place to write, the front page of VetVoice was an available option. Not long after, I along with ThisDudesArmy and LT Nixon became front page contributors at the relatively new VetVoice blog.
"ThisDudesArmy" was the pseudonym of Alex Horton, who had already been writing his own blog, Army of Dude for several months through the surge in Iraq where he served with the 2nd Infantry Division. In my opinion, Alex's writing talent dwarfed anything I had been capable of by epic proportions and it was an honor to have my by-line appear next to his. I've tried not to change VetVoice much from the original feel of the community back then. There are new faces here to be sure, but the mission is still the same.
After I left the Army, I focused more on my work with VoteVets and eventually came on staff. LT Nixon, who had been blogging from Iraq as a Naval officer, got out and took a job out of the country, but still pops up around the milblogosphere every now and then. When Alex ETS'd, he refocused on Army of Dude and did the lord's work exposing the Quixotic task of obtaining post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in the early days of the program.
For all the manhole covers Alex dropped on VA in those days, it's a welcome surprise to hear that Alex is joining VA as part of their new media team. Alex has the experience and the credibility to help VA move further into the 21st Century and use web 2.0 tools to more effectively help Veterans. Alex is one of us, and it's always a good thing when a guy who has experienced the problems of a system first hand gets the opportunity to fix it.
Karl Rove has an op-ed in today's Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal (the print edition of Murdoch-owned Fox News) arguing that when he didn't defend the Bush Administration from charges that they lied us into war with Iraq, he hurt America:
The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false-and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.
There are, at least, two problems with Rove's line of argument in the piece.
First, to accept that his failure to defend the Administration from accusations of dishonestly hurt the country, you have to also accept an alternate reality in which that Administration didn't lie us into war. In that reality, documentation of collaboratorsacknowledging that dishonesty could not exist. Of course, that isn't the reality in which we live.
Second, you'd have to live in an alternate reality where the Bush Administration didn't hit back at those who correctly accused them of lying us into war by outing a covert CIA agent who had discovered that the Administration was lying. Of course, the Administration did that.
In addition to these alternate realities, Rove offers no defense to the charge. His only argument is that "Democrats bought our lies and parroted them". To be sure, Democrats did do that and should be held accountable. But just because your opposition bought it and gave you cover doesn't mean you weren't lying.
Sorry, Karl. But you and your cohorts lied America into a quagmire that has needlessly killed thousands of American troops, an action that allowed the real war on terror in Afghanistan to deteriorate to a point that it may now be unsalvageable, while also publicly revealing covert intelligence networks in an act of personal retribution. These actions are what you should feel ashamed of, rather than lying about not lying when we found out you were a liar.
As Spencer notes, calling them a militia isn't accurate, as they are government uniformed and government payed, and likening them to the Anbar Awakening is wrong as well since they are not former insurgents. However, General Petraeus is seeking to install the closest replication of his similar strategy from Iraq that we have yet seen in Afghanistan:
In a welcome step forward for the Obama administration's beleaguered war strategy, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has approved a U.S.-backed plan to create local defense forces across the country in an attempt to build grass-roots opposition to the Taliban, U.S. and Afghan officials said Wednesday.
The program calls for hiring as many as 10,000 "community police" officers, who would be vetted and paid by the Afghan Interior Ministry, according to a senior Afghan government official. Karzai had objected to plans that did not place all elements of such a force under direct government control.
This is going to be interesting to watch unfold. This could either end up being exponentially productive for Afghan governance, or go horribly wrong.
The Afghan National Police are widely seen as corrupt. Dissertation rates have plagued the ANP, and even if those problems didn't exist they are marked as being an arm of Hamid Karzai's Afghan National Government, an entity that is not seen as legitimate by the overwhelming majority of Afghans. These local defense forces will be able to provide security to local populations without being seen as ambassadors for Karzai. It also has the potential to bring security to areas of Afghanistan that might not have any sort of security force anytime soon, as a result of the lack of availability of trainers for national police.
On the other hand, Afghanistan has a long history of fierce tribalism and rule by warlords. Administrators will have to walk a fine line between providing support for local security and facilitating warlordism (did I just make that word up?).
It's been 18 months since we elected a President who has promised to repeal DADT. Clearly, that letter was correct:
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all met or exceeded their June accession goals. The services also are at or above their fiscal year-to-date retention goals for the first nine months of fiscal 2010.
The active-duty recruiting numbers for June are as follows:
-- Army: 102 percent of its goal; 7,438 accessions with a goal of 7,328.
-- Navy: 100 percent of its goal; 3,209 accessions with a goal of 3,209.
-- Marine Corps: 100 percent of its goal; 4,048 accessions with a goal of 4,046.
-- Air Force: 100 percent of its goal; 1,935 accessions with a goal of 1,931.
Four of the six reserve components also exceeded their June accession goals, officials said. The Army and Air National Guard intentionally slowed June accessions because they are exceeding their fiscal year-to-date recruiting goals, officials said.
What will our military ever due if our recruiting/retention rates continue to decline at this rate?
BAGHDAD - Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, said Tuesday that Iranian-backed Shiite militias might increase attacks on American military bases this summer as thousands of American soldiers begin leaving Iraq.
"There has been some intelligence of Iranian surrogates attempting to attack U.S. bases," General Odierno said at a Baghdad news briefing. "For years, these groups have been talking about that they are forcing the U.S. to leave. It's not necessarily what's reality; it's what they're able to use propaganda-wise, and I feel they think this would be a huge propaganda tool for them in the future."
Remember this:
As long as we are reliant on foreign oil, we are funding both sides of the fight.
The trial over a court challenge to DADT beings today. The challenge was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans which essentially functions as the GOP's LGBT caucus:
"We're trying to get this changed right away. After all, there are people today fighting, dying for our country, while their constitutional rights are being violated," said attorney Dan Woods, representing the national organization whose 19,000 members include current and former military members.
Some legal experts say the trial that opens Tuesday in Riverside, Calif., could not come at a worse time for Obama, who derided the policy but has failed to get it off the books since taking office last year. Not only are midterm elections approaching, but the group suing the U.S. government is Republican.
The Log Cabin Republicans know what is right on this issue. You can't support the troops and oppose repeal. There are gay troops in the ranks now who are forced to lie about themselves, in violation of their own integrity. If anything, that is incompatible with military service, not open homosexuality.
Those same brave service members fight just as hard and sacrifice just as much as their straight comrades do not have access to military support channels for their loved ones, such as Family Readiness Groups and casualty notification.
VoteVets.org and the Log Cabin Republicans are on the same page on this issue: you can't support the troops and support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
The Army put out a message to soldiers who will receive new MultiCam uniforms for Afghanistan - don't plan on wearing your fancy new duds to the bank at lunch time.
The strict new rules that will govern the fielding and wear of the new Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern uniforms are laid out in a June 10 All Army Activities message.
"OCP is authorized for wear in Afghanistan only," the message states. "Only U.S. Army soldiers and members of other services assigned to U.S. Army units operating in Afghanistan are authorized" to wear the new pattern.
I remember when the ACU was fielded, one of the reasons was that it would save taxpayer money on combat only uniforms (the DCU). I guess after burning tons of money facing out the BDU, we're going the other way on that.
U.S. Gen. David Petraeus lauded Pakistan's efforts at battling Islamist militants Monday during his first visit here since taking over as top NATO commander in neighboring Afghanistan this month.
A top American military commander headed for Afghanistan on Tuesday said he would not be surprised by links between Pakistan's spy agency ISI and Islamist extremist organisations, who have established a safe haven in Pakistan's restive tribal region.
Yeah, I get that Petraeus can't get in front of cameras in Islamabad, stand next to the chief of the Pakistani Army, and call the country out for supporting the Taliban if we hope to have a cooperative relationship with that country, or if we ever hope to convince them to stop aiding the Taliban. I just hope that after the cameras were turned off and the journalists left, Petraeus relayed some stern language regarding the ISI to Pakistani officials.
Retired O-6 Chaplain Arnold E. Resnicoff, who has a pretty amazing bio, has a great op-ed in today's edition of USA Today on the ridiculous controversy over the response of Chaplains to DADT repeal:
Today, despite two centuries of such heroic, selfless service by military chaplains, some religious groups threaten to withdraw their chaplains from America's armed forces if "don't ask, don't tell" - the policy allowing lesbians and gay men to serve only if they hide the fact that they are gay - is changed.
The current policy dishonors gays. The threat dishonors chaplains.
A chaplain's mission
Despite some outlandish claims (including one charge that the Bible will be banned), chaplains should not be affected by a new policy. "Don't tell" never did apply to conversations with a chaplain, which are "privileged communication." And good chaplains can preach and teach, true to their beliefs - respecting rights while challenging what they believe is wrong. They also teach commandments - loving neighbors, judging not, not casting stones, the golden rule - that help the troops serve together.
Free exercise of religion is the basic reason chaplains serve. But their mission is threefold: ministry to those of their own faith; helping those of other faiths fulfill their religious needs; and providing care for all. Christian chaplains ensure that Muslims have prayer rugs and Jews have matza, and military rabbis and imams find rosaries and New Testaments for personnel they serve. For those in pain - religious, atheist, straight or gay - chaplains offer comfort and a helping hand.
I'd add to Resnicoff's words that the United States Military is not exactly a sin free environment. Excessive alcohol consumption and pre/extra-martial sex (h/t Kayla) are frequent topics of conversation. That doesn't make those things right, but I never heard of any particular religious sect threatening to withdrawal its Chaplains because there are drunks and fornicators within the ranks.
The difference? Hate. Pure and simple. The Bible says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. The only thing that could make any religious institution, that looks to that book for guidance, value what they consider to be one sin over another is bigotry (Yes, there are many other religions besides Christianity with chaplains in the ranks. However, Christian denominations are the only groups I've heard of that have threatened to recall their personnel).
Personally, if any particular religious denomination wants to remove their chaplains as a result of this errant policy being corrected, let them go. Good riddance. There should not be any place for bigots in our uniformed service.
Post-traumatic stress disorder is the signature injury of the post-9/11 combat veteran. For years, as Veterans returned home with the invisible wound, VA red-tape has made it difficult to obtain a disability rating for the condition. Strange rules make it nearly impossible to prove the affliction. For example, Veterans have had to prove the existence of a "stresser" in order to qualify for a rating.
Most service members weren't whipping out their iPhones in the middle of firefights to get a video of them being shot at while holding up a copy of that day's edition of the New York Times, or obtaining certificates of having seen a child blown up by a suicide bomber.
To make matters worse, many women find their claims rejected with the VA assuming that they could not have been in combat when females on the front lines are theoretically prohibited. While women might not be carrying an M-249 in an infantry squad, female medics certainly are at the spearhead, female logistics Soldiers drive supply convoys on treacherous, IED laced roads, and female linguists, such as VetVoice's own Kayla Williams, have become an invaluable part of the force.
Even if a Soldier never encounters an IED, firefight or other defined "stresser", certainly walking patrols, running convoys or door-gunning a Chinook helicopter requires a state of long term hyper-vigilance that undoubtably effects the mind.
After already increasing VA funding and signing a bill to insure advanced funding for the Department, President Obama's Department of Veterans Affairs plans to announce next week that it is removing the speed-bumps that hindered PTSD afflicted Vets from obtaining a disability rating:
The government is making it easier for combat veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits.
The Veterans Affairs Department plans to announce Monday it will no longer require veterans to prove what might have triggered their illness. Instead, they would have to show that they served in combat in a job that could have contributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.
The nearly 20 percent of Veterans who return with signs of PTSD will now find it easier to obtain what they earned when they bravely defended their country. Making the process for obtaining benefits as smooth as possible is the least we owe these heroes. This decision to streamline the process for PTSD claims illustrates a commitment to our Veterans from this Administration that was absent for eight years under previous leadership.
For example, even with all the previously mentioned hurdles, Vets wishing to obtain a PTSD rating had even more impediments under the President's predecessor. As VoteVets uncovered in 2008, the VA of those days deliberately misdiagnosed Veterans to reduce the cost of treatment and disability payments:
On March 20, 2008 a VA hospital's PTSD program coordinator sent an e-mail to a number of VA employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist stating that due to an increased number of "compensation seeking veterans," the staff should "refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out" and they should "R/O [rule out] PTSD" and consider a diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder" instead.
This doesn't even address the Bush Administration's under funding of VA and general lack of concern for Veterans and caring for them. The treatment received by Vets from George W. Bush was shameful, but President Obama has raised the bar and set a new standard for the way we care for Vets.
Gross said confusion in the field over the existing tactical directive, which seeks to lessen civilian casualties by specifying when force can be used against Taliban insurgents, has resulted in some soldiers feeling as if they are fighting a war with their hands tied.
"I think troops just felt they couldn't do anything," Gross said. "That's just not the truth."
There have been reports of commanders in the field adding restrictions that further limit troops, which prompted Petraeus to order a review of warfighting procedures. Gross said the new directive will tell commanders not to add rules.
This is good. As I've written previously, there is no need to actually change the RoE. Soldier's have every ability to defend themselves, we just have to be more deliberate about how and when we use force. Dumbing nuance down to a 3 x 5 or wallet sized card is what leads ground troops to thinking they aren't allowed to shoot. Hopefully, Petraeus's directive will lay it on the line.
In 2007, my unit was the only American conventional combat arms task force operating in all of Helmand province. Chain of Command was an inherent problem in the region. Who did we report too? The American Commander in RC-East? The British Commander in Helmand? The Dutch Commander of RC-South? COMISAF? As Americans reinforced their numbers in the southern Afghanistan province, the problem has continued. Thankfully, Britain is at least turning over part of her holdings in Helmand to the United States:
London, England (CNN) -- British troops will pull out of the notorious Sangin district of Afghanistan's Helmand province to allow U.S. Marines to take over, British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said Wednesday.
The British forces will redeploy to the central part of Helmand, leading the task force with Danish and Estonian troops there, while U.S. troops are positioned in the northern and southern parts, Fox said.
This will allow greater unity of command and should result in an overall increase of cohesiveness in the U.S. mission.
Yesterday, we gave Senator Patty Murray space on our front page to criticize the VA for the practice of "gaming", which works the VA appointment system against Vets in order to improve VA numbers.
We're not taking a position on this issue either way until we hear more information, but we are interested in being fair. As a result, I think it's important to point out that VA Under Secretary for Health William Schoenhard addressed the issue last week with CNN:
choenhard told CNN he had no personal knowledge of any VA facility using the inappropriate scheduling practices, but issued the memo to avoid future problems.
"This is a proactive step to set the tone that there will be zero tolerance for any unfair scheduling practices," he said.
"When I send out a memo like this, it is my expectation going forward that the facilities would seriously consider what practices are in place for scheduling veterans for appointments and ensure all we do in the future is 'veteran centric.'"
"We will have no tolerance for anything that causes the veterans inconvenience," Schoenhard asserted. The memo outlines more than 20 practices Schoenhard said VA schedulers must avoid.
So Schoennhard's and VA's position is that they don't know that this was happening, but took a preemptive strike with the memo addressed by Senator Murray. Fair enough. But now VA is on notice. If a VA clinic is found to be using these practices, Big VA has no excuse.
Looks like they are throwing the book at him (good). A lot of these charges seem multiplicious, especially for sentencing purposes, meaning that they are essentially using multiple charges for the same crime, which won't increase the maximum punishment. Still, this is a pretty good load that I'd estimate the Government will use to induce a plea deal. If Private Bradley Manning, the accused, is smart, he'll take it.
Assuming he's convicted, he'll be spending a long time in jail, and rightfully so.
Similar to the Hasan case, US v. Manning now heads for an Article 32 hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury, where a neutral and detached officer from Manning's unit will be appointed to hear evidence and determine whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial, and if so at what level. This isn't a beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, and I expect it to be a formality.
Andrew Breitbart, who makes a habit of putting racist convicted criminals on the pay roll, launched his latest venture over the weekend. Called Big Peace, it is Breitbart's attempt at some kind of national security/milblog. Or something. Truth be told, it's not real coherent and seems to be just a bunch of crazies tossing around nutjob conspiracy theories about how the President supposedly hates America.
If you click through to Big Peace (I advise against it) you'll see that Breitbart, probably the least credible "journalist" (playing it fast and loose with that term) the world has ever known, adorns his marquee with the name of a man who is quite possibly the least credible national security "expert" (again, fast and loose) to ever bill himself as such.
Yes, Frank Gaffney gets top billing at Breitbart's latest attempt at hackery (one expects that he'll succeed with flying colors. He's batting 1.000 at hackery so far). Old readers here will remember Frank Gaffney from this gem:
Stay classy Frank.
Gaffney has also written that the President is secretly a Muslim who wants the U.S. to submit to Shariah law, even alleging that the Obama administration sent secret signals to the Muslim world with the design of the Missile Defense Agency logo.
Gaffney is clearly an unstable kook with no credibility, and the uncredible Breitbart is putting all his chips for his latest venture on Gaffney's craziness.
Oh hey, remember when Obama started the war in Afghanistan? That's how it happened according to Republican Party chair Michael Steele:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele expressed an unusual interpretation of the relationship between Barack Obama and the war in Afghanistan at a Connecticut fundraiser Thursday.
"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Michael Steele said at the event. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
At least Michael Steele is being honest and acknowledging that Republicans never really took fighting in Afghanistan seriously. I just wish that, if that were the case, I didn't have to spend 14 months in the country and guys from my unit didn't have to lay down their lives for something that the Republican leadership at the time didn't "want to engage in" or "actively prosecute".
The Pentagon has recommended that the Medal of Honor be awarded to a living individual for the first time since the Vietnam war, for his actions during a battle in the Korengal Valley in the fall of 2007:
The military says the soldier ran through a hail of enemy fire to repel Taliban fighters in a 2007 battle, saving the lives of a half dozen other men. Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity and declined to name the soldier because he is still under consideration for the honor.
I'm anxious to see who this hero is. My unit was in and around Korengal during that period.
General David Petraeus was confirmed yesterday as the Commander, International Security Force in Afghanistan:
Petraeus replaces Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose three-decade career ended in disgrace because of inflammatory remarks he and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine.
"Gen. Petraeus is a pivotal part of our effort to succeed in Afghanistan - and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida - and he has my full confidence," Obama said in a statement shortly after the Senate's 99-0 vote.
Obama said the Senate's quick action and Petraeus' "unrivaled experience will ensure we do not miss a beat in our strategy to break the Taliban's momentum and build Afghan capacity."
Petraeus is a brilliant scholar of counterinsurgency and an outstanding leader. If anyone can turn the situation in Afghanistan around, it's Petraeus. Problem is, I'm not sure he can do it either (though that is certainly no fault of his). While I certainly hope we can find success in the country, after all I've got a 14 month investment in that fight, sometimes the best man for the job still isn't enough to overcome the insurmountable.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. Stanley McChrystal, fired from his job as commander of the Afghanistan war after more than three decades in the Army, will be allowed to retire at the rank of four stars.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the White House will do what it can to ensure McChrystal keeps that rank. McChrystal had been a four-star general for just over a year when President Barack Obama demanded his resignation as Afghan war commander because of scornful remarks made to Rolling Stone magazine.
Under Army rules, McChrystal would have had to serve three years as a four-star officer to retain that rank, with its higher prestige and deeper retirement benefits.
I'm not sure how this is going to work, although I'm admittedly no expert on General Officer promotions. I do know Generals must be confirmed by Congress. It would seem as though something like this would need some legislative involvement as well. Regardless, McChrystal deserves it.
Oh, and just to point out AP's asleep at the wheel journalism (not that it's out of character for them), I'm wondering where they got that the President "demanded" McChrstals resignation. Every other media report notes that McChrystal didn't plead for his job, offered his resignation, and his Commander-in-Chief accepted it. Is this a scoop, or is AP just making shit up? I'm guessing the latter.
Yesterday, Senator Patty Murray requested unanimous consent on the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act, a bill she has sponsored that would provide aid to those who have served there country but find themselves with no place to sleep at night.
The days are long gone when I was surprised that Republicans in Washington wouldn't stand up for Vets, but this is a whole new level. Senate Republicans actually objected to and stood as a road block for providing aid to our Nation's heroes that are living on the streets, even those with children:
Coburn's objection (by the way, what a coward that he couldn't even do his dirty work for himself) to the funding is a farce. During all the years of deficit spending on wars in the Bush Administration that created this new generation of combat Veterans, I never heard a word from Tom Coburn regarding the effect on the deficit. Now, suddenly that's a problem.
Coburn and McConnell should just say what they mean. They care about limiting spending about as much as they care about Veterans (nill). There real concern is continuing their obstructionist tactics in an attempt to ensure that Senate Democrats can't get any work done, for Veterans or anyone else. I never thought that the Party of No would use homeless Veterans and their children as a political football. Apparently, no matter what we owe to Veterans and their families, nothing is sacred to these disgusting Senate Republicans.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was fired last week as the top U.S. general in the stalemated Afghanistan war, told the Army on Monday that he will retire.
[...]
The Army has been McChrystal's only career. He was promoted to the selective and coveted rank of four-star general last year. It is not clear whether McChrystal will be able to retain that rank in retirement. Under Army rules, generals need to serve three years as a four-star officer to retain that rank, with its prestige and retirement benefits.
The secretary of the Army can allow officers with as little as two years of service to keep their retirement rank, Collins said.
Three military and defense officials in Washington said Obama may use his power as commander in chief to allow McChrystal to keep all four stars. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the personnel matter.
I'm not sure the President has that authority. If he does, I support it. Stan McChrystal is one this country's greatest warriors who, through one stupid error, rendered himself unfit for command. If he can retain his fourth star, he certainly deserves it. However, I don't know for sure that that is possible.
I'm an avid enthusiast of counterinsurgency doctrine. Not always for it's application in a given conflict, but just the theory and it's implications. Aside from a professional familiarity with the subject, I also spend a fair amount of time reading up on it for pleasure, as well as doing a minimal amount of academic research on the topic.
To be sure, there are plenty of facets of COIN that can by fairly criticized. It requires time, money and man power that is often infeasible or undesirable, for instance. But one thing that isn't a fair criticism is a narrative that has emerged from the McChrystal flap-- that is that McChrystal's Rules of Engagement had been to restrictive. Example:
Down in the ranks, however, the rules are widely perceived as too restrictive, playing into the hands of the Taliban, who appear keenly aware of the regulations. Some troops believe the rules cost American lives and force them to give up the advantage of overwhelming firepower to a foe who shoots and melts back into the civilian population.
At a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hinted about possible changes in the rules when asked about troops who feel "they're being asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back."
The problem with this narrative is that it assumes that that are strict, hard, fast, black and white rules that the counterinsurgent in the the field must follow. Aside from things like "don't shoot innocent civilians", this isn't really the case. Counterinsurgency is much more nuanced than that. Andrew Exum, (COINdinista, CNAS fellow and Afghanistan Strategy Review participant) makes the case:
, if counterinsurgency as practiced by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps has developed into some kind of rigid step-by-step process, we're not correctly applying the doctrine. Even tactical light infantry doctrine, like FM 7-8, allows for leaders on the ground to shape their tactics and operations depending on variables such as the mission, enemy, time, troops, terrain, civilians on the battlefield, etc. FM 3-24 is no different and in fact stresses the need for leaders to remain flexible and to adapt the doctrine to the war - not to try and force the environment to fit the doctrine.
This is why it agitates me when I hear of complaints from pundits or even from the front lines that McChrystal's rules say you can't conduct night ops, or air strikes or blow up buildings. While it may not be preferable to do those things, in COIN leaders have to evaluate the individual circumstances to determine the correct course of action.
If those kind of hard, fast, rules bother you, don't blame McChrystal or his intent. Blame the culture that has emerged amongst the ranks that encourages dumbing everything down to a check list that can be laminated and shoved in Joe's wallet, rather than encouraging leaders to actually understand the strategy and the commander's intent and conveying it to their subordinates.
Top officials in President Hamid Karzai's government have repeatedly derailed corruption investigations of politically connected Afghans, according to U.S. officials who have provided Afghanistan's authorities with wiretapping technology and other assistance in efforts to crack down on endemic graft.
In recent months, the U.S. officials said, Afghan prosecutors and investigators have been ordered to cross names off case files, prevent senior officials from being placed under arrest and disregard evidence against executives of a major financial firm suspected of helping the nation's elite move millions of dollars overseas.
I wish I had a nickle for every time I've written this: For effective counterinsurgency, we must have a legitimate partner in the host nation government. We do not have that in Hamid Karzai. As long as his government continues to act in such an illegitimate corrupt manner, success in Afghanistan will be, at best, an uphill battle, if not impossible.
Erik Prince, whose private security contractor Blackwater and its successor have survived on hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury, says he's tired of "a sort of proctology exam" by Congress and "will be exiting the U.S. government market completely."
[...]
"After three-and-a-half years of an assault by some of the bureaucracy, a sort of proctology exam brought on by some in Congress, it's time to hang it up, because some in Washington view politics as more important than performance in the field," he said.
Prince, you dolt, you've got it all wrong. Those in Washington have wised up to your ways and it is exactly your "performance in the field that has led to this decision. What you and your company do directly endangers the U.S. mission in the countries where you operate. You help fund the Taliban. You steal weapons meant to arm the Afghan National Army. You massacre civilians which endangers our COIN efforts. Worst of all, you do these things without any recourse for accountability.
Sorry, Erick Prince, but your "performance in the field" is exactly what has led to your "proctology exam". Good riddance.
More and more, it seems as though the road to high level combat commands runs through Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The recently sacked General Stanley McChrystal is an old hand of the Special Forces Community, headquartered at Fort Bragg, and previously commanded that post's Joint Special Operations Command. Two of his rumored replacements, David Rodriguez and William Caldwell, previously commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. His ultimate replacement, General David Petraeus, command the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd, and later served as the Division's Deputy Commander for Operations.
Today, on Capitol Hill, Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin, who held Battalion, Brigade and Corps level commands at Fort Bragg, is beginning his hearings to replace General Ray Odierno (who served as a Company Commander and Staff Officer in Fort Bragg's XVIII Airborne Corps) as commander of American Forces in Iraq.
But today's hearing isn't focused on the Fort Bragg connection between these individuals. What it is concerned with is a connection that, hopefully, does not exist between McChrystal and Austin:
For Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, nominated to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq, the most important issue at his Thursday confirmation hearing was whether he had ever given an interview to a major magazine criticizing U.S. political and military leaders.
Austin's hearing may be the first in what becomes a new paradigm for military officer's confirmations to high level commands. Previously, hearings have focused on how the nominee sees nature of the conflict and what the officer's plans are for the way of head (mixed with a fair amount of political grandstanding from the committee members, of course). What we may now see is military confirmations beginning to resemble their civilian counterparts. Long vetting processes with records being combed through before the hearing.
VoteVets/VetVoice personnel have spent the last couple of days making the rounds to offer commentary on the comments and ultimate dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal. Below, you can check out Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz on MSNBC and CNN's Larry King Live, as well as VetVoice front-pager Matthew Alexander on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
UPDATE:More gold from Ambinder, who is dispelling some of the loony conspiratorial bullshit that his been floating around:
Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This serves to put to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President
So let the bullshit end here. To the left, stop making up shit and realize McChrystal for what he is: a great Commander who fucked up bad enough that he had to go. To the right, please finally but to bed the bullshit stereotype that you cannot be a warrior and a liberal.
This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment - and a desire to see the mission succeed - that I tendered my resignation.
It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest.
By the way, remember when I tried to get everyone on the D-Rod bandwagon? Bet you wish you had taken my bet now, don't you?
UPDATE: Noah at Danger Room (where Spencer will be joining the team; good move, Wired.) lays out why McCrystal had to go:
[If McCrystal kept his command,] No general could've taken Obama seriously, after getting dissed so publicly by McChrystal's crew. No captain or sergeant could've been expected to shut up and salute when his superior officer gave an order. The guy at the top didn't respect his commander; why should he?
The culture of accountability so meticulously built up by Robert Gates during his tenure at the Pentagon - gone. The long tradition of civilian control of the military - wrecked.
"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.
Matthew Alexander
Adam Sewer
Marcy Wheeler
Rep. Jerry Nadler
Vincent Warren
"ThisDudesArmy" was the pseudonym of Alex Horton, who had already been writing his own blog, 
