The President must make that clear tonight. Though planned combat operations are done, every single one of the 50,000 remaining troops is a combat troop. There's a reason that convoys are called "combat patrols." There could still be casualties. Whether our troops engage in combat will be decided on the ground in Iraq, not in Washington, DC.
Additionally, the war within Iraq still rages on. There is no stable government. There is no long-term settlement among Iraq's factions on issues such as oil-revenue sharing. We are all pleased that the President stuck to the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the past administration, and the removal of thousands and thousands of Americans is a good development. But, by no means is this war over.
One need look no further than Somalia and Beirut for what happened at what were supposed to just be peacekeeping operations to know that there are no guarantees. Heck, one need look no further than the last declaration of major combat operations being over and "mission accomplished." The point is, the President cannot and should not use this as a "victory speech," no matter what his pollsters tell him. Should he do so, it's very likely to blow up in his face.
Additionally, the President should look to Iraq for lessons that can be applied to Afghanistan - a war he will surely note was put on the back-burner because of Iraq. While the Iraq surge was a tactical success because American troops are the best in the world, it still is not a strategic success. The surge was never complemented by a surge in diplomatic and political armies, and as such, we just were keeping the cork on the bottle. As attacks mount in Iraq among warring factions absent American forces, that lesson has become all too clear.
The President has made his decision to ramp up troop levels in Afghanistan far past what he promised during the campaign. Many veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq disagreed - favoring a more limited counter-terror operation. But, now that the decision has been made, the President must ensure that the Afghanistan surge is not a military one alone. Unless a non-corrupt and stable government with the confidence of the Afghan people is put into place, there can never be real success in Afghanistan.
The purpose of writing all of this isn't to minimize the accomplishments of this administration when it comes to keeping their timeline for moving troops out of Iraq. Nor is it to be a 'Debbie Downer.' It's my sincere hope - as it is all of ours - that Iraq stabilizes and we can fully remove our troops. And, of course, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans stand with the rest of America in wanting to see success in Afghanistan.
But, where the previous administration continually blew smoke and painted rosy pictures regarding the wars, this President must deal honestly with the American people. Only by doing so - by being straight about the challenges we still face - can the American people be prepared for the tough road ahead.
The open disdain and personal ridicule of the President and his advisors by General Stanley McChrystal and his subordinates in the new issue of Rolling Stone leaves only two acceptable options: Either General McChrystal resigns or is fired.
If he has any honor, he'll step down.
I know something about this. In 2006, I worked with two Generals, appearing in national television ads critical of President Bush and his strategy in Iraq. Or, should I say, retired Generals. Major Generals Paul D. Eaton and John Batiste each made the painful decision to leave the military they loved, so they could speak out. To that point, they had held their tongues.
Why?
Because the order and efficacy of our Armed Forces falls apart without respect for the chain of command. Whether it's a grunt respecting his company commander, or a General respecting the Commander in Chief, every single thing is predicated on the integrity of the chain of command. As soon as someone - especially someone as high up as General McChrystal - violates that respect, every single person under him begins to not only question the orders they've been given from above, but is given the signal that it's OK to openly disagree or mock his or her superior.
And, violate that respect General McChystal and his subordinates have. Among other things, the Rolling Stone story reports first-hand that:
* McChrystal was disappointed with his first meeting with the President, and that he feels the President is uncomfortable and intimidated with military brass.
* McChrystal's aid calls National Security Advisor James Jones a "clown."
* Another aide says of envoy Richard Holbrooke, "The Boss [McChrystal] says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
* Bolstering that, McChrystal himself, receiving an email from Holbrooke says, "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it."
* On Vice President Biden, who disagreed with the General's strategy in Afghanistan, McChrystal says while laughing, "Are you asking me about Vice President Biden? Who's that?"
* An aide, mirroring his boss, adds, "Biden? Did you say Bite me?"
Anyone of lower rank would be immediately dismissed if he or she said of their superiors what General McChrystal said, or what he allowed members of his team to say.
This, of course, isn't the first time that the General has been in trouble. Following a very public campaign for his preferred strategy in Afghanistan, which included a 60 Minutes interview that challenged the President, McChrystal landed in some hot water with the President, and was told to cool it. Frankly, McChrystal got off easy.
When General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress about his opinion on the force levels needed to invade Iraq, countering the strategy laid out by President Bush and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was forced into retirement. Shinseki, unlike McChrystal, was asked his opinion, under oath, in front of Congress. There's a difference between that professional conversation, and personal attacks on your superiors. Shinseki didn't lead a public campaign to air his views, either. At any rate, McChrystal was given a second shot, where Shinseki was not.
Whether he continued his insubordination purposely, or stupidly and unintentionally, isn't an issue. The issue, here, is that it happened. Again.
I cannot fault McChrystal for believing in his strategy. That's what you want out of a General - someone who gives the President strong advice, and believes what he says. But, what cannot be allowed to stand is when he believes in his strategy more than the command structure and order of the Armed Forces, and his duty to uphold it.
It's clear, now, that General McChrystal is unable or unwilling to work within the chain of command, and set an example for all those who serve under him. That is why I say, if he has any honor, he'll offer up his resignation. And, if he doesn't, the President must fire him.
This week, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) began posting open letters to President Barack Obama on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Each day, SLDN is posting a letter from a veteran affected by the outdated policy.
This is my open letter to the broader veteran community to pay attention to these stories and consider offering your own public support.
Over the past several months, I've written on why we should repeal, opined on how to approach the process of repeal and predicted how a debate might take shape. However, repealing DADT is not my fight directly - I'm what the LGTB community calls a 'straight ally' in the fight.
I was asked by a fellow veteran recently - "Why are you writing this stuff? You are really putting yourself out there."
The response I provided came with a simple question, "what do you think is right - should we keep the policy?" My veteran friend admitted that the policy was wrong and that it should be repealed. Still, his point is well taken. As a straight veteran writing about repealing DADT, I am not exactly doing much for my own interests. In fact, speaking out puts me in opposition to friends who want to maintain policy or are simply complacent on the issue.
My interest in this fight can be summed up in short - repealing DADT is the right thing to do.
When I was in combat, I saw men and women alike risk their lives for the sake of our country's freedom. Our friends have died in these ongoing wars. They made the ultimate sacrifice. If anyone has earned personal liberty and freedom, it is our veteran community.
Gay and lesbians are a vital group within our veteran community. They help form our ranks. These troops are among those who keep our nation safe. While we are on active duty, we are simply unaware of their presence - Is this ignorance really necessary?
One of the Army's core values is loyalty. This value is central to why I've chosen to write on this topic.
Just like in a firefight, our gay and lesbian troops are advancing forward and need straight allies at their flanks. There are many of us out there who support repeal but it is easy to stand idle as our friends continue to be denied a basic freedom.
More of us should continue join the fight. Denying gay and lesbian troops a basic freedom undermines the sacrifice we've all made for the sake of freedom. By denying their freedom to serve openly, we effectively diminish what it means to spend a year away from family, or the peril in charging an enemy position under direct fire.
This should not be a fight that our gay and lesbian peers take to Congress alone. Just like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we served side-by-side, this is our fight too.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ryan McDermott.
Among the tragic news in Haiti, and the expected dissection of the Senate race in Massachusetts this week, there's another story going on that likely will not get as much coverage, but is still extremely important. Dozens of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from VoteVets.org are flying into Washington, DC to join with the Campaign to Close Guantanamo in lobbying Congress to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
These veterans will deliver a letter to a number of Congressmen and Senators, co-signed by about 2000 veterans, calling for Congress to follow President Obama's lead, and move to shut down the facility that has become a blight on America's reputation.
Indeed, the more time goes on, the more disturbing news comes out. Just this week, Harper's has an investigative news story that punches holes in the "official" story of three Gitmo detainees who were found to have killed themselves. In the story, we learn about "Camp No," which Keith Olbermann rightfully called "a Gitmo within Gitmo." The facility was nicknamed Camp No, because if anyone asked whether it existed, the response would be "No, it doesn't." We don't really know who was in charge of Camp No, or what went on there. However, we do know from the Harper's report that the secret facility played some kind of role the night the detainees supposedly killed themselves.
As I've chronicled here before, the stories of torture and endless detainment without trial that are all associated with Gitmo have served as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda. While closing Gitmo won't end the ability of al Qaeda to recruit, restoring the rule of law and human rights will deliver a serious blow to their efforts. And, the fewer people they are able to recruit, the safer our troops and America will be.
Additionally, removing these kinds of symbols is essential to a counter-insurgency strategy working, which the President has decided on for Afghanistan. That's why even General Petraeus has said that closing Guantanamo is of utmost importance. A key element of a working counter-insurgency strategy is winning hearts and minds and gaining trust of key leaders. The mere presence of Gitmo, and the stories of torture it represents makes it all that much harder for our forces to forge a trusting working relationship with local leaders.
The most recent argument for keeping Gitmo open is the failed attack by the Christmas bomber. Trained and equipped in Yemen, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received help from Yemenis who were once held at Gitmo, and released by the Bush administration. How could we, the argument goes, close the facility and let all these potential terrorists back into the field?
First, no one is talking about opening the doors of Gitmo and letting everyone just walk out. The Obama Administration has moved, after years of delay, to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a handful of other terrorists. There is no indication that they will be the only ones to face trial and likely conviction.
Secondly, the Christmas bomber will now be handled the correct way. He'll be tried in our criminal courts, convicted, and likely sent to our Supermax prison that has held some of the world's most heinous terrorists and criminals, safely and securely. When he is, there will be no clearer example that we are much better off taking terrorists and putting them through proper trial and imprisonment, not simply tossing them in Gitmo without a real plan. Doing so will help restore our reputation as a fair nation of laws, and will put a terrorist away for the rest of his life, legally.
For all of these reasons, those who actually fought terrorists in war, and know how they operate and think are coming to DC to tell Congress to move without delay on closing the prison at Guantanamo.
For too long, those who haven't served on the ground in these wars have been allowed fear monger, distort, and downright lie about the issue - and politicians and the media have largely been too eager to accommodate them. We're not going to let that happen anymore. We'll force our way into the debate, whether they like it or not. That's what our DC trip is all about. It's a matter of America's reputation, it's a matter of our troops' safety, and it's a matter of our nation's security.
The failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airplane by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has raised a ton of questions - from what holes there are in airline security, to how he wasn't picked up before on suspicion of terrorist activity. But, to me and the forces in or heading to Afghanistan, one of the most pressing questions is why we're sending nearly every Marine and Soldier we have to Afghanistan, when Abdulmutallab and a Somali man arrested for plotting a similar attack last month apparently had no real connection to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed, as now has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab received materials and training in Yemen, a largely lawless, poor country just south of Saudi Arabia. The Somali man, picked up in Mogadishu, seems to have been wearing a similar device as Abdulmutallab, suggesting he received his materials and training from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as well.
Yes, the United States has done some right things to address the threat from this region - sending over $40 million in aid to Yemen last year to fight the squalor-like conditions in which many Yemenis live, and contributes to an atmosphere that breeds terror, and nearly $70 million in counter-terror funds, to help the government directly combat al-Qaeda. Those funds are expected to increase this year, as well they should.
Clearly, however, money is not enough. It's not enough to fight al-Qaeda in Yemen, or anywhere else throughout Africa, or any region in the future where al-Qaeda takes foot. The United States and its allies have the right to work in conjunction with governments to strike al-Qaeda camps and leaders, or do it ourselves if the in-country government is unable to.
That leads me back to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yes, the region is still a major center of al Qaeda activity, and yes, our military must be involved in the region to strike at the terror network. But, given the ability of al-Qaeda to spread and pop up in areas around the globe where we are not present, it simply doesn't make sense anymore to engage in a long-term counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which focuses on beating back insurgents rather than al Qaeda, and securing the country at large. That strategy relies on nearly every troop we have, and could have many of them stuck there far past President Obama's 2011 deadline, given Richard Engel's recent report on NBC that Afghan security forces are nowhere near ready, and may never be.
Now, yes, if it works, a counter-insurgency strategy could largely quiet al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, the same as a narrower counter-terror strategy would, but at what cost? What about the other branches of al-Qaeda around the world? It's clear they'll simply pick up the slack, in terms of striking the U.S. Without enough forces to stay flexible ourselves, and without indigenous governments capable of crushing al-Qaeda in their nation, we're simply letting al-Qaeda breed elsewhere, largely unfettered.
So, as President Obama examines the holes in security, he would be wise to also reexamine his decision to commit almost every troop we have to Afghanistan. Sun Tsu said to know thy enemy and thyself. We know al-Qaeda isn't going to stay put to fight where we want to fight. We know that we simply don't have the numbers to secure all of Afghanistan as part of a long-term counter-insurgency and fight al-Qaeda elsewhere. Combined, those facts suggest the far wiser course for the U.S. is to not rely on a counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan for the long-term, but free up troops to take part in counter-terror operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, or wherever al-Qaeda may try to set up base next.
This Thanksgiving, the thing that will stick the most with me is while watching football, we'll surely see the thanks to and from the troops videos just before commercial breaks. You know, the ones that have a young Army Sergeant in Iraq saying hi to his wife and kids, and another where a public figure thanks the troops for their service. This is the eighth year in a row we'll see these videos here at home.
At the same time, I can't help but think that some young grunt is watching these videos for maybe the fourth or fifth time from a TV that the USO set up in the warzone. And, while he'll strap on his rifle and go whenever called, part of him is thinking "How many more Thanksgivings am I going to have to watch these videos from over here? If you want to thank me, let me eat some turkey at home. Let me see my girlfriend and parents and friends for more than just short stints at home. Don't you have someone who can rotate in here for me so I can stop doing these tours for a while?"
Thanks to President Obama, some troops will see a bit of relief. By ending the Stop Loss policy, and supporting giving troops "dwell time" (as much time at home as deployed), our troops will get rest.
But, unfortunately, given the op-tempo of the wars we're in, added to rumors that we'll be sending an increase of troops to Afghanistan, there are no guarantees that troops might not see their sixth or even seventh Thanksgiving at war over the course of the next several years.
As Spencer Ackerman correctly notes, the reported decision to increase of troops to Afghanistan means our force will once again be at a breaking point. Now, we'll have to wait to see how President Obama addresses this point, but without a speedier withdrawal from Iraq, or a concerted efforts to grow the size of the Armed Forces at a more rapid pace than we've seen, we're going to be left with very few troops in the bank, so to speak. That means sending the same troops back out there again and again and again as soon as their dwell time is up.
Don't get me wrong, troops appreciate all the thank you messages, and getting a piece of home while watching football in the USO tent is maybe the absolute best feeling in the world when you're in Iraq or Afghanistan. But at a certain point, for those there for yet another holiday, the thanks start to ring a bit more hollow.
So this Thanksgiving, when you see those videos during the game, take a moment to think about that young grunt watching these videos from war yet again, and others like him. Put yourself in his boots. Carry that feeling with you through the rest of the year, and let it affect how you view all the news from the warzone, and decisions we make about the wars here at home.
I never thought Sarah Palin could say something that would leave me totally speechless, but this time, she's done it. Reports Politico:
Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday accused President Barack Obama of not acknowledging the sacrifices made by the men and women in the U.S. military.
"There's been a lack of acknowledgement by our president in understanding what it is that the American military provides in terms of, obviously, the safety, the security of our country," Palin said during an interview with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren. "I want him to acknowledge the sacrifices that these individual men and women - our sons, our daughters, our moms, our dads, our brothers and sisters - are providing this country to keep us safe."
Hasn't acknowledged their sacrifices? Seriously? What's this look like?
It looks, to me, like more than the last President did.
This president also fought for, and got passed and signed advanced funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, so that we can honor the sacrifices from our troops and veterans, by properly taking care of them. Advance Funding has been a top priority of all veterans groups for a while. President Obama made it into law.
The president ended the Stop Loss policy, which involuntarily extended troops in theater past their commitment - one of the most offensive policies to troops who made incredible sacrifice. The President ended the ban on photos of the return ceremony for the fallen at Dover Air Base and other ports of entry, allowing families to decide if their loved ones casket could be shown. Now, all of America can join in the solemn return ceremony, and see those who made the ultimate sacrifice be honored.
This president also ordered his Pentagon to re-prioritize their funding requests, to move away from high-end, unneeded weapons systems, and towards on-the-ground equipment that our troops in the field right now desperately need. One of those big ticket items, funding for more F-22s, was finally ended under the Obama administration, while funding for more desperately needed on the ground Mine Resistant Ambush Vehicles (MRAPs) was increased. Who opposed ending F-22 funding? Palin's party. I had a throwdown with a GOP Congressman on TV about it.
Where was Sarah Palin, saying Phil Gingrey wasn't acknowledging the sacrifices of our troops? I just checked my cell phone records, and no, she definitely didn't call me to say she stood with the troops on that issue.
Afghanistan? Yes, I want the President to make a call as much as anyone, and wish he could have started to formulate a new strategy earlier. But, at the end of the day, I'd much rather him take time to get the strategy right than just roll the dice on a gut feeling and hope for the best. Making sure the strategy in Afghanistan is right, and that we have what we need to get it done and leave, is much more respectful of our troops and the sacrifices they make. Only someone who had no concept of their sacrifice would shoot first, ask questions later.
Of all people, Sarah Palin knows what sacrifices troops make - her son is one. That none of the above even remotely registers in her mind can mean only two things - either her mind exists on an entirely different planet, or she knows she's being completely disingenuous for political reasons.
It seems many military people have made up their mind. As my colleague Richard Smith reports, prior to Palin's visit to Ft. Bragg, book stores couldn't give her book away. Wonder why?
For the last couple of days I've been trying to put together my thoughts on the recent claims by one liz cheney, she don't deserve caps for name. But as this royally pissed me off when it first aired I kept getting madder and madder trying to write something, not being a writer adds to that, and I just had way to much hitting my mind to say to her and anyone else. But low and behold I found a piece by another Veteran that says allot of what I wanted and figured I can link to his while adding the links I wanted to.
This is what I first started out with and kept changing:
November 3rd will be the sixth anniversary of the first installation of Arlington West on the beach. Veterans For Peace Chapter 54, the Jim and Shirley Kennedy Chapter will set it up with friends on Sunday, November 1st and mark the sixth year that it has been installed on the first Sunday in November by citizens volunteering their time and talent to this community project to demonstrate the true cost of war.
It was set up weekly for five years but has been once monthly for the last year, being the first Sunday of every month.
Citizens who wish to help the Veterans For Peace and friends with this effort should come between 7am and 9am for set up or at 3pm for takedown. We set up Arlington West in fair weather only to protect the memorabilia left by families of the fallen. Arlington West Santa Barbara was the original but has inspired similar displays across the USA.
This past week, former Republican Congressman John McHugh, the new secretary of the Army, said that the Army is ready to deal with repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell without a problem.
So why hasn't a repeal been enacted?
To that, I say, we're getting there. In the House, Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran, has taken the lead on the bill to repeal the policy, and has the support of other Iraq and Afghanistan era war veterans, like Tim Walz and Joe Sestak. At VoteVets.org, we're now better than 10,000 signatures (over 5,000 veterans) in favor of a repeal on our online petition.
In the Senate, we're very close to seeing companion legislation introduced. A number of Senators, from Kirsten Gillibrand, to Mark Udall, to John Kerry, to Barbara Boxer have been working on the issue, with many more ready to jump on a bill.
Meanwhile, those opposed to a repeal hang on to this notion that a repeal would affect unit cohesion.
Hurt unit cohesion? For years, the military accepted those with "serious criminal misconduct" issues-aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats-because recruiting under normal standards was falling fast. According to USA Today, one-in-eight Army recruits required a waiver by 2008.
One such recruit was Steven Green, guilty of the brutal murder of a family, and the rape of their young daughter, in Mahmudiya, Iraq. After Green killed the family and raped the young girl, he covered her head with a pillow and shot her. Her body was then burned. The murders set off a wave of anti-American sentiment in Iraq, pushing our battle to win hearts and minds even further back. Green was allowed in on a waiver, despite his three alcohol and drug related arrests.
Meanwhile, a highly decorated Airman is fighting a discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach served in the Air Force, defending America for 18 years. Fehrenbach is now being represented by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and has nine Air Medals - including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire. He and his wingman spotted armored personnel carriers laying in wait for U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad. Fehrenbach's wingman's plane malfunctioned, so he couldn't accurately fire his weapons. Fehrenbach not only fired his own weapons but he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target. All this while they were under fire.
Tell me now about which person affects cohesion and readiness?
Here's an idea: Let's just keep our best troops, no matter what their background or orientation. Those with a criminal history who have proven to be good troops can stay. Those who are openly gay will abide by the same strict rules that govern heterosexual relationships in the military. If they break the rules, they're out. But if they also prove to be valuable soldiers, we keep them, too. When our top concern is a military made up of the very best society has to offer, America wins.
Momentum is picking up in Congress behind that notion, and that's a good thing. But we still need the President to make his move.
Like most issues, it will take the President to put this issue over the top. During the campaign, he vowed to repeal the policy. Once in office, he deferred to the military, first ordering a study to examine how a repeal might affect things. Now, his own hand-picked Secretary of the Army has given him an answer: It won't affect much.
The fact of the matter is that implementing a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a problem for the military. They can do it quickly and easily. The delay in a repeal has been and continues to be a political problem for politicians.
I'll start this out with a short clip of a speech Senator, and brother 'Nam Veteran, Kerry gave on his return from a fact finding and diplomacy trip to Afghanistan. In this clip, in just a couple of sentences, he lays out the reality as to what one leading 'chickenhawk', and to many war criminal, has been blathering lately. Though Kerry doesn't mention it also speaks as to what that chief 'chickenhawk's' spokesperson, his daughter, fast becoming the leading 'chickenhawkette', has also been spreading around, allowed to and rarely, if ever, challenged.
October 16, 2009
Reporting from the world's most troubled hotspots, Mark Danner has seen countless deaths over ethnic and political divides, and witnessed firsthand how U.S. attempts to exploit those conflicts have resulted in disastrous unforeseen consequences. Danner speaks with Bill Moyers about Obama's challenges in resetting the mindset of America from war to peace, and redefining the US as a nation...>>>Read the Transcript and Watch the Discussion
In the debate about the internal White House debate on which way to go in Afghanistan, one piece has been seldom talked about - did General Stanley McChrystal hurt his own cause?
There is absolutely no doubt where McChrystal stands: He wants a massive influx of troops, to execute a counter-insurgency strategy, which includes securing the people, taking and holding of areas, and rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban. The strategy would very much mirror what was done in Iraq. Now, leaving aside for the moment whether this strategy would work in Afghanistan, the way the General made his case may have done more harm to his opinion than good.
From his speech in England, to his interview with 60 Minutes, to the piece by Bob Woodward that detailed his fight, the General has been incredibly public, taking the debate out from closed doors. It's hard for me to criticize that in and of itself. After all, the many veterans I represent, and I, stood up for General Shinseki when he took his criticism public of the Bush/Rumseld strategy to invade Iraq. VoteVets.org gave voice to Generals Eaton and Batiste, who resigned from the military so they could speak out.
But therein lies the rub - from Generals MacArthur to Shinseki, history has taught us that trying to pressure your Commander in Chief from the outside almost never results in a change of opinion from the President. In fact, it breeds tension that could lose the debate, if not your job.
For all the criticism from the left and right about President Obama, no one can argue that, so far, he hasn't deferred to military leaders on most issues. From the early days of his administration when he approved a troop increase for Afghanistan, to his ordering a study rather than a quick repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to keeping pictures of Abu Ghraib under wraps, the President has heeded the advice of military minds, and has been backed up by the most senior retired officer in his inner circle, General James L. Jones.
On this occasion, however, Jones' response to McChrystal has been telling. Jones hasn't taken the General's side, or gone out of his way to defend him. In fact, on CNN, Jones bluntly said of McChrystal's public stance, "It is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
Ouch.
If I had to make a gut call right now, I'd say McChrystal won't get what he was asking for, but more of a hybrid strategy that focuses mainly on counter-terrorism - quick strikes against al Qaeda and some Taliban, yet some more troops to help the Afghan Army in some areas, and train them. Coming from President Obama, who is notoriously non-confrontational, that compromise strategy would mark the first time he's really said 'no' to the military to any real degree, and some of that may have to do with how McChrystal handled all of this. It basically puts McChrystal on warning that he doesn't call the shots.
During the campaign, the President made a constant point of saying he wanted vigorous debate within the White House, and wanted to be told when he may be wrong. All indications are that he's getting his wish. That the debate has spilled outside the confines of the situation room, however, might not be the change he was looking for, or something he'll stand for much longer.
If there's one thing that the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll tells us, it's that when the President outlines a good policy and speaks directly to the American people about it, he can connect. So, it's not a surprise that after a summer where the President was pretty quiet on health care, September has seen his numbers on that issue begin to turn around. Yet, as casualties increase in Afghanistan, while the country teeters on the brink, public opinion has swung clearly against the war in the region, as the President has spent most of his time talking about domestic priorities.
The administration continues to say, and I continue to believe, that Afghanistan/Pakistan is not a war of choice. But, how we continue to wage it is a series of choices. And, on these choices, the President must make some relatively quick decisions, and make his case to the American people.
So, what are those questions that the President needs to answer, and take to the American people?
Tomorrow, under an agreement with the Iraqi government, American troops are slated to completely pull back from major cities. The Iraqi security forces don't seem ready for it. And, while it seems counter-intuitive, if they aren't getting their act together, we need to speed up our departure.
In his trip to Iraq in April, President Obama said, "It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. They need to take responsibility for their country."
That much is true. What is also true is that it hasn't happened. What's true is that the Iraqis seem less interested in political progress that would lead to a relatively peaceful Iraq, and more interested in US Forces staying indefinitely to protect them from killing each other. Sure, Prime Minister Maliki says the right things about wanting the US out of Iraq, but that's purely political - he has to say those things so as not to look like a US puppet.
But, beneath the surface, there's been no political progress. There still is no oil sharing agreement, no resolution to the strife that has continued to affect Kirkuk, and no settlement among the many factions that will allow them to live side by side in peace.
And so, if the US pulls back, there's a powder keg ready to explode, with an ill-equipped Iraqi military left to try to hold things together. Frankly, the Iraqi military will never be well-trained enough to handle major explosions of violence, only minor disputes. Iraqis know this, which is why they'll continue to rely on us as a crutch as long as they can.
The problem with that is, if we have one foot in Iraq and one foot out, we are going to have a scenario when Americans think this was is over and one day they wake up to 8 or 9 dead troops in the streets of Iraq. Besides being a disaster in and of itself, it becomes a political problem for President Obama and Democrats, who own the situation now. To borrow a phrase from John McCain on Afghanistan, we'd merely be "muddling through" Iraq. That's not in US troops' interest, and certainly not in American interests.
We've already seen violence ramp up in Iraq, as surge troops have left and others pulled back. Just last week, over thirty people were killed in a series of attacks, on June 22, with at least two dozen more injured. It's exactly what I and others said it would be. We were the cork on the bottle, and for all the talk about the surge being a success, without political and diplomatic progress, it ultimately meant absolutely nothing.
I was on Hardball in July of last year about it, and said the surge was a failure in that sense, and guest-host Mike Barnicle was nearly apoplectic about it.
BARNICLE: Did I hear you correctly that you said you didn't think the surge was a success?
SOLTZ: It's not a success. I mean, we've not seen political reconciliation in Iraq. We are about to have a complete stir-up in Kirkuk. We have a situation in Afghanistan where it's totally, you know, less secure now than it was before.
The purpose of the surge is to make America safer. And I don't think anybody believes that. And I think that Senator McCain is, you know, off base like George Bush. And that Senator Obama is specifically right to continue to talk about strategy and diplomacy and defeating al Qaeda worldwide than get stuck talking about, you know, a tank platoon or an infantry platoon in the streets of Baghdad.
Now we see that, indeed, the surge meant nothing without political progress.
The question is, where do we go from here? President Obama has got to get tough with the Iraqis and make good on what he said during the campaign. I'm not privy to all the negotiations with Iraq, or any attempts to bring sides together. What I do know, however, is that there haven't been any results, either because President Obama hasn't tried hard enough, or because his efforts have failed.
Whatever the case, the President absolutely has to resist any temptation to buy more time for political progress by keeping troops there to continue to coddle Iraq. All it will mean is more violence that has American troops in the cross-hairs. The President must tell the Iraqis that, if anything, we're going to speed up our timeline to leave Iraq if they continue to stall political progress - that their internal political problems aren't worth American blood.
Like any political leaders, those in Iraq don't want to lose power, which they most certainly would if the nation falls apart into a loose patchwork of clans and fiefdoms. So, in the end, only the realization that their nation is about to fall apart and they won't have Americans around to keep it together, will be the kick in the pants Iraqi political leaders need to settle their major differences.
It's time for President Obama to recognize that, and get tough. If the Iraqis aren't committed to dealing with their internal problems then we should expedite our withdrawal. American troops should never be more committed to the peace and security of a foreign country more than those who live there.
Let me get this straight. The latest polls say three-quarters of the American people want a public option in health care, yet it's in question. But, Congress is about to throw $369 million (on a down-payment of $2 billion) for a dozen F-22 fighter jets that even the Pentagon doesn't want. Oh, and the money for it? It's coming out of funds that were set aside to clean up dangerous nuclear waste in the U.S.
Only in Washington.
For those not familiar with the F-22 and why it's a waste, let me explain. It's one of the most - if not the most advanced air-to-air fighters in the world.... To fight the Soviet Union's next generation fighters. That's right, that's why it was developed. The fighter has limited air-to-ground capabilities, which renders it pretty much useless in the wars we're fighting right now, and might be fighting well into the future. President Obama and Secretary Gates have rightly decided to shift our procurement to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which we could actually use, because of its air-to-ground and stealth capabilities.
Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters. Secretary Gates asked for only four more, to complete what the Pentagon said it could use. After that, the military doesn't want any more of them. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for it saying, "The time has come to move on."
Apparently not those looking out for defense contractors, though.
And so, Congress is about to use the Defense Authorization Bill to pay for fighters we don't need from Lockheed-Martin, while taking money from cleaning up nuclear waste. Six decades of U.S. nuclear weapons research, testing, and production activities have left dozens of Department of Energy sites contaminated by radioactive and hazardous waste. The contamination threatens workers, communities, and the environment, including major water supplies.
Now, other veterans and I aren't for cutting the Pentagon budget in a way that would hurt our troops in the field, or hurt our ability to defend America now or in the future. But, our money is best spent on equipment that is so desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan - items like the Stryker armored vehicle, which the troops and veterans of VoteVets.org have almost unanimously raved about, for its ability to maneuver while protecting them from IEDs. That helps us a lot more than planes sitting idle somewhere.
So, a warning. To any in Congress who vote to keep this money for the F-22 in, don't try to present it as a pro-military vote. The military doesn't want it. Troops can't use it. Most veterans would say they're not for it. And none of us are for letting dangerous nuclear waste continue to seep into our land and water. So don't try to tie this pork to troops and veterans.
In fact, those who really care about the military, troops, veterans, and America will vote to strip the money for the F-22 out. We'll be watching.
Did Dick Cheney knowingly send intelligence officials to Congress to mislead them about the use of waterboarding? Did the Vice President himself?
We simply don't know. But we need to know, in light of the explosive report in the Washington Post today, that the Vice President took a very personal role in some Congressional briefings.
Now, why would veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan care about this? Isn't this a political issue? Maybe, but it has far reaching implications for our troops in the field.
First - we absolutely have to send the message to the Muslim world that to the degree that we did torture, we fully investigated how those tactics came to be employed (including how it may have been hidden at the time), and held accountable those who were at fault.
To be clear, President Obama is making great progress by ending the use of torture, and moving to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo. But, it makes it harder for our troops to win hearts and minds, and still serves as a great terrorist recruiting tool, if there is word out there that the United States tortured, and let people responsible walk, without accountability.
Second - We have to send the message to our allies that when we violate international law (as General Petraeus has said), we fully investigate and hold people accountable. If we can't make good on our agreements in the Geneva Conventions, then it severely and adversely affects the trust of the world to uphold our other agreements.
Further, it hurts our ability to build coalitions in the future, when going to war is truly in our national security interests (unlike Iraq). It's always somewhat en vogue to bash the international community, but the fact of the matter is that we need the nations of the world to trust us, especially if we're to ensure that future conflicts don't fall just on the shoulders of our troops.
I see the appeal of moving ahead, and not looking back, when it comes to torture. Most people would like to just move on and forget about the past eight years. But, we can't.
The old saying from Santayana is "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." We can't learn from recent history unless we know everything about the recent history of torture. That's why we need to investigate the whole truth about torture, now.
As the extremely unpopular Dick Cheney continues his torture apologist tour, the reactionary (they are now beyond conservative) opinion media tries to shift attention to Speaker Pelosi and to distract President Obama from the urgent business of repairing our nation.
What are we to do? Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi gave us the answer immediately following the tragic attack upon our country by Osama Ben Laden and Al Qaeda. The answer is Independent Commission.
"From the outset, I believed that a review of the events leading up to the attacks, including the government's response, and the larger issue of our nation's preparedness for terrorist attacks, needed to be comprehensive and conducted independently by individuals who could bring fresh thinking to the issues at hand.
"Congressional investigations, no matter how thorough, would likely be restricted primarily to the jurisdiction of the committee or committees involved.
"Because the government would conduct such investigations, they would be unlikely to achieve the same degree of public acceptance as an independent inquiry.
"I regret that such an inquiry did not begin sooner. Within weeks of the attacks, I offered legislation to establish an independent review to be conducted by people who would challenge conventional wisdom and who had wide perspective and broad experience in dealing with complex problems..."
Nancy Pelosi was right then and her same advice is right now. President Obama did not want the issue rising at this time but it is too late for that course of action. National security is at risk. The very integrity of our legal system and constitution are at stake. No one is above the law. The president is first among EQUALS but not above our lowest citizen. While vile rumors tarnish our soldiers' and country's reputation abroad and stir hate and physical attacks toward us, here at home, violence increases in our society. The world and we need to know exactly what deeds were done in our name, why and the outcome.
My own personal opinion is that while the disaster of 9/11 called for a level of greatness and resolve found in all the core events of our history from Valley Forge to the Great Depression, the Bush regime rather sacrificed principle and courage for weakness and cowardice. While our people cried to participate and our military sacrificed, the panicked Bush regime dishonored our nation and squandered our resources. I say this because you should know where I am coming from.
The reason Dick Cheney is speaking out is not patriotism but the hot breath of exposure and justice breathing down on him. While the failed vice president rationalizes and dissembles nationally, the United States Government cannot ignore the apparent crimes and failures of the past nearly eight years. For national security reasons, we must perform an accounting of what worked and what failed and why.
The nation conveniently forgets "Slam Dunk!" George Tenet. Bush's approach was unlawful interrogations and opposing a 9/11 commission. Speaker Pelosi stood tall and called for an Independent Commission then; she calls for an independent commission now. Republicans, evidently afraid of the truth, oppose any independent commission.
If we are to accept and condone torture of anyone, it will infect our own society. Already, the integrity of the military appears to be eroding as witnessed by the Tillman case and the cover up of troop electrocutions. Soon, if not already, we will see police abusing prisoners. I am a graduate of SERE school. This is the school that exposes select troops to the dangers of captivity and torture. I am proud to say that the instructors there are the very people who led interrogations while exposing and opposing them.
Let's call for an independent commission to review the whole depraved issue of prisoner handling and treatment since 9/11. After that if criminal charges are necessary, we let the law take its course. This way Congress and President Obama can get on with the business of governing. As far fetched as it sounds, it may not be long before waterboarding and other forms of torture come to a police station near you. Why stop at criminal terrorists? Drug users and dealers cause far more American deaths and I know some of you racists out there can't wait to get your hands on illegal immigrants.
Brian McGough knows the pain of navigating from Department of Defense (DOD) medical care to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) care all too well.
In October 2003, Brian was wounded by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Mosul. After undergoing surgery to repair his open head wound, he spent several months recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Brian still battles the effects of both his injuries.
But Brian's battle wasn't over when he left the military.
The gaps in transitioning from DOD to VA care were so bad, the byzantine process so confusing, and the paperwork so heavy, that Brian had to spend three months on unemployment, while he waited to be fully transitioned, so he could receive benefits from the VA for his injuries, which made it impossible to work at the time.
Thankfully, Brian's doing better today, and is now the Legislative Director and Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org. As the group's point person on policy, Brian made sure that making a seamless transition from DOD to VA was one of our legislative priorities.
So when the White House called and asked VoteVets to be there today, to hear the President announce a huge initiative to bridge the transitioning gap from DOD to VA care, who do you think we gave the honors?
The announcement from the President that DOD and the VA will create a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for all those who serve our nation in uniform will change the way we treat our troops and veterans, for the better, permanently. By doing away with all the paper and moving to electronic records, all pertinent information will follow a servicemember through his or her service, to return, and then to transition to VA care and beyond. Not only does this mean fewer mistakes in diagnosis and treatment, but that a lot of the maze of bureaucracy and paperwork that kept Brian from getting the care and benefits he needed will disappear.
That, along with the President's support for advance funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and opening the department up to many vets who were previously shut out because of their incomes, will help ensure generations to come can get better care with fewer headaches.
And that's the point. Because, the truth is, this is bigger than me, bigger than Brian, and bigger than VoteVets.org. This is about the thousands upon thousands of veterans who are still struggling with this transition, and the millions of troops who will face this transition for many, many years to come.
Though today's announcement was an extremely positive deal, not every problem was fixed today, and we still have a lot of work to do. But, as long as the White House reaches out to us, we'll be there to work with them.
Got any stories about issues with the DOD/VA transition? Please share below. Reporters might want to hear from you!
For those of us who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was extremely important that the new President get the situation in Afghanistan right. Not just for America's security, but for those troops still in Afghanistan, and those heading to Afghanistan to put their lives on the line in the war. With today's announcement, President Obama has shown that he "gets it." That's why we at VoteVets.org are supporting the plan with a petition, which you can sign on to, right here.
There's a lot to like about the plan. But, there are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this President not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there.
Point One: The Military Can't Do It All
The President recognizes that the war against terrorists requires much more than just throwing troops at the problem. That alone will go a long way towards setting policies that make America safer, and taking the burden off our military.
The President said today, "To advance security, opportunity, and justice - not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces - we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers.... These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run - because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility."
This is key, and something that was lacking in the region for a long time. Those hardline radicals who want to take control thrive on poverty and misery of the people. The single best thing we can do to ensure that the Afghan people aren't so destitute and broken that they're tempted to join these radicals, is to send civilian training and humanitarian aid.
Many have already heard about the kids from Pomona California Village Academy High School, many have probably caught their little eight minute video that has launched them into the National Spotlight and Political Debate on what this Country is now going through. But this isn't new it's just affecting many more kids and families now, with more added each day. Kids can't learn and achieve any dreams they might have if their families are struggling and their living those struggles daily.
President Obama is expected to lay out his broader approach to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan this week, following a strategic review he ordered upon taking office. Whatever approach he takes, one critical piece must be an attempt to bring in more moderate elements of the Taliban.
"Wait, what?! That Taliban," you ask?
Yes. Let me explain. Violence continues to increase in Afghanistan, and the government there slowly loses control of areas that had previously been secured. Further, those areas that never were secured in the border region with Pakistan continue to be safe havens for al Qaeda. And so, a hard truth has become even more apparent - there is no military solution to Afghanistan, as there was no military solution in Iraq.
That isn't to say that military force isn't a component of a solution, as VoteVets.org's Vice Chair Brandon Friedman has argued on here before. Our military, and the militaries of our allies, are crucial in protecting infrastructure that we've helped build in Afghanistan, and providing security and stability in areas we need to be able to close in on al Qaeda.
But that can only be one ingredient, like eggs or flour are only one ingredient when baking a cake. Humanitarian aid, economic help, political negotiating, and diplomacy are the other elements that have to be present. Otherwise, you end up with a pile of burned flour, or a pre-9/11-like haven for al Qaeda, whichever the case may be.
And so, when it comes to stabilizing the region as much as possible, and denying al Qaeda free ground, bringing in a wide range of players is a good idea, as long as they're willing to make concessions to have a seat at the table. There is precedent here for this kind of tactic - whether it was Sinn Fein / IRA being brought into a power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland, or the FMLN negotiating a truce in El Salvador's Civil War, and transforming itself from a bunch of guerrillas into a political party (which recently won the nation's elections). And, of course, there was the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, where former insurgents flipped against the group that called itself "al Qaeda in Iraq," and joined the government.
In Afghanistan, there's evidence that there could be elements of the Taliban who would sit down and enter into an agreement. They would be brought into the halls of government, and be given some kind of amnesty, while they would aid us in strangling al Qaeda.
Indeed it's an idea that seems to be gaining steam. In a March 7th interview with the New York Times, President Obama said while he didn't want to prejudge the strategic review, he was open to the idea, and felt General Petraeus was open to the idea as well. The very next day, General Petraeus expressed support for the idea at the Heritage Foundation, saying, "If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward."
"The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government," he added.
As if on cue, President Karzai of Afghanistan opened the doors to negotiations. "As I have called upon Mullah Omar Taliban leader many times, I call upon the others, Taliban members too, that they should come back to their country, rebuild their country, they are welcome," President Karzai said.
All the pieces are there for the President to propose this as a major part of his approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan; now he must do so. It would finally shift much of the burden off of our troops in the region, who have been asked to do so much with so little. And, along with reopening the dialogue with Iran and other regional players, it would give us the best shot at finally doing what we should have done when the previous President decided to take a five-plus-year detour in Iraq.
I went over to ABC News to see if they had posted a video report that I caught last night, never got to that as this is what I found, and will be airing this morning on GMA.
(This is a guest post by Jon Powers. Jon is the Veterans Program Director for The Eleison Group, LLC, where he is working on developing the outreach efforts of the progressive community to veterans and military families. He is an Iraq War veteran, a former congressional candidate in New York's 26th district, and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project. - promoted by Brandon Friedman)
When President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, he did so with an interesting caveat. He explicitly stated that we cannot solve the problems of Afghanistan by military means alone. He's right, and he deserves credit for saying so. However, it is crucial that we apply that lesson not only to a single issue, but to a broader national security strategy. We live in a world where security has come to mean more than soldiers and submarines, but also development and diplomacy, as well as hearts and minds. Our broader security strategy needs to take that into account.
A recent story from Afghanistan drives home this point with great clarity. A few months ago, several young Afghan girls were attacked with acid by extremists for the "crime" of attending school. One of those girls, Shamsia, will remain physically scarred and partially blind for the rest of her life. Yet these girls made a heroic return to school in January, showing true bravery and rebuffing the extremists' tactics of fear. It is this courage and the courage of millions of other every day citizens around the globe that we must tap to battle extremists. If we are to live in a safer world, we must develop a national security strategy that aims to mobilize men and women in all nations to embrace Shamsia's example.
No one understands this better than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, he outlines the need for "reprogramming the Pentagon for a new age" and creating a new and balanced strategy because "the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory." He fully understands that the military must develop more than conventional firepower to win this long war. As a veteran of the Iraq war, I believe Secretary Gates is definitely on the right track.
I saw first hand how the military became overextended in Iraq. My soldiers and I worked regularly with Iraqis to help them improve their economy and refurbish their schools. But as rewarding as that work was, it was not what we were trained to do. We were trained to fire artillery rounds and conduct checkpoint operations, not to design development projects. These are missions traditionally done by the State Department, but the Bush Administration failed to strike the right balance between the job of a soldier and the job of a civilian.
Fortunately, many military leaders realize that a fully funded State Department can help lay the foundation for real national security. General David Petreaus recently claimed that our objectives in Afghanistan are "not just the desire to help the Afghans establish security and preclude establishment of extremist safe havens, but also to support economic development, democratic institutions, the rule of law, infrastructure, and education." These are the efforts that will deny extremist groups the kinds of desperate populations that are ripe for extortion.
The economic crisis that we face today provides us an opportunity to prioritize this needed change by ensuring that we have a strategic balance in our spending. A prime example of unbalance spending is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. At a price tag of $242 billion, it is the most expensive aircraft program in the history of the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying due to a lack of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs). Similarly, a dearth of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) makes it more difficult to scour the mountains of Afghanistan looking for Osama Bin Laden or Taliban fighters.
Scrapping the F-35 altogether may not be the solution, but cutting expensive programs that are geared for tomorrow's conflicts will be necessary if we are to afford the military and diplomatic tools we need to win today's wars.
President Obama and his national security team face incredible challenges. They also have a unique opportunity to drive the real change our national security strategy needs. Rebalancing our approach and taking cues from great leaders like Secretary Gates and General Petraeus will allow us to create an environment for true security. Only then can we tap into the courage of people like Shamsia and her friends who dream of a future of education and opportunity, not fear and terrorism.
After a major policy announcement that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq will end next year, President Obama spoke with Jim Lehrer about Iraq, Afghanistan and the challenges of his new presidency. Watch the full interview on Friday's NewsHour.
In a speech Friday at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama set a timetable for U.S. combat troop withdrawal in Iraq by 2010. The president discusses his military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan with Jim Lehrer.
Full Transcript
Almost completely forgot about this, they're airing some of it now!
This started out as just a 'to be comment', with the NPR report just below, updating the reports surfacing about the revisit of the policy on our returning soldiers killed in action in the two combat theaters. I kept finding abit more so included, along with an upcoming HBO presentation, this coming weekend, of a documentary on the journal written by an officer as he accompanied a soldier back to his family and community.
Christina Bellantoni, writing in the Washington Times today, details President Obama's first experiences writing letters of condolence to families of the fallen. According to the story, the President is taking the time to write each letter himself, signing it simply "Barack." As the President writes these letters, and feels the weight of Americans dying in war under his administration, he should also consider how the human cost of war has partially been hidden from the public, and reverse that policy.
Indeed, the Washington Post reports at the same time today, that Secretary Gates is reviewing the ban on any coverage of war dead coming home at Dover Air Force Base, and the incredible respect shown to the flag draped coffins. Presumably, when that review is done, it will be presented to the President, so he can make a decision.
As the Post notes, the ban is not something that's been around forever. In fact, it's a pretty recent policy, instituted for purely political reasons, with waivers given, also for purely political reasons. The ban was instituted just before the first Gulf War, by the first President Bush, worried that images of the dead coming home could affect support for the war, just as they had during Vietnam. And, as noted in the story, George W. Bush allowed images of a victim of the Pentagon 9/11 attacks to be shown, to stir up anger (as if we needed any more reason).
Of course, this isn't a cut and dry decision, nor should the ban be lifted without any kind of restrictions.
Concerns over privacy are legitimate, and the survivors of our fallen service members should be respected. For instance, if newspapers are allowed to print pictures of returning caskets, it's not proper to identify who is in each of them, without the consent of the families. They should be given time to grieve in their own way, and in their own time. However, showing unidentified flag-draped coffins coming into Dover (or any other ports of entry) is not an invasion of privacy, but is an unfortunate part of war that the public has a right to see.
Some in Congress have been working on this issue for a while. Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican who VoteVets.org has supported, has legislation that would reverse the policy, while keeping concerns about privacy in mind. With 'bi-partisanship' all the buzz in DC, you couldn't find someone who is more of a true conservative than Walter Jones. President Obama should work with the Congressman on his legislation, so that any reversal of the ban could be bipartisan and move through Congress, instead of by executive decision.
In the end, those of us who served swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Part of that Constitution is freedom of the press, to promote the ability of the public to have as much information as possible - even when that information is not comfortable for those decision-makers in power.
The return of our war dead certainly falls into that category. The policy should be changed.
Talk about fast. At 12 noon, the White House website flipped over from President Bush to President Obama. Of particular concern to me and all of the veterans with VoteVets.org was what the agenda was for veterans. On that, just one second after 12 noon, the new White House scored an A+.
Just before the inauguration, VoteVets.org polled the over 45,000 veterans and veteran families in its over 100,000 person email base for suggestions on what the new administration should tackle at the VA. Today, the White House website makes clear that the message was loud and clear.
The full memo VoteVets.org sent to the transition on our findings can be found here. The White House page on veterans can be found here. Notice similarities?
VoteVets.org Memo - Lack of easy access should be met with more VA hospitals and clinics and/or ability to get care elsewhere.
White House Page- Expand Vet Centers
VoteVets.org Memo - Prescriptions are often too expensive for many vets to afford; and Emergency services need to be covered.
White House Page - Fully fund the VA so it has all the resources it needs to serve the veterans who need it, when they need it.
VoteVets.org Memo - Advocates are needed.
White House Page - Hire additional claims workers, and improve training and accountability so that VA benefit decisions are rated fairly and consistently.
VoteVets.org Memo - Streamline and make the disability process easier to understand.
White House Page - Fix the Benefits Bureaucracy
How refreshing to have an administration that hears veterans, listens to veterans, and plans to fight for veterans!
We'll see what happens the rest of the week with an Executive Order closing Guantanamo, banning torture practices, and setting a new course in Iraq. But, if the new White House page on veterans is any indication, we finally have a President who is listening to us.
While we'll take Any In Depth Reports about what already should have been common knowledge on Post Traumatic Stress I do have just a couple of minor irritations with an otherwise Stellar Report on the Treatments for PTSD in the Washington Times edition today. let me get them out of the way.
The report, called VA grapples with veterans' mental traumas, is a six page writeup of which one Audrey Hudson deserves alot of credit for reporting and apparently has done a few others this year as the previous link would show.
Just caught this short report on a Press Conference tomorrow, 12-07-08, about who will head the incoming Administrations 'Veterans Administration' agency.
Beyond Basic Training After being medically retired from the Army, Iraq veteran Kevin Randolph and his family are without options. They move to a transitional housing facility, and Kevin must enter one of the worst job markets in recent history to support his wife and their new baby.
"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.
November 3rd will be the sixth anniversary of the first installation of 
