White House Catches Up With the Vietnam Analogy - Well Sort of...

Well, you have to give points for creativity. After ignoring the lessons of Vietnam for years, for fear they might actually apply to Iraq, perhaps Carl Rove, in absentia, may have given the President a way to use Vietnam - an interpretation with which no one has yet voiced agreement, much less understands.

So, because, this blog has previously posted the following Vietnam-Iraq analogy several times (which appeared all over the Internet beginning in mid-2003) , it's worth repeating it again, one more time, in the failing hope that anybody inside the Beltway would have the light come on...

The Vietnam II Preflight Check:

1. Cabal of oldsters who won't listen to outside advice? Check.

2. No understanding of ethnicity's of the many locals? Check.

3. National boundaries drawn in Europe, not by the locals? Check.

4. Unshakable faith in our superior technology? Check.

5. France secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

6. Russia secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

7. China secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

8. Enemy supply lines unknown? Check.

9. Sec of Def pushing a conflict the Joint Chiefs never wanted? Check.

10. Fear we'll look bad if we back down now? Check.

11. Corporate Texan in the White House? Check.

12. Land war in Asia? Check.

13. Right-wing unhappy with outcome of previous war? Check.

14. Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check.

15. Soldiers about to be exposed to our own chemicals? Check.

16. Daily guerrilla attacks that cannot be stopped? Check.

17. Anti-Americanism up sharply in Europe? Check.

18. B-52 bombers? Check.

19. Helicopters that clog up on the local dust? Check.

20. Infighting among the branches of the military? Check.

21. Locals that cheer us by day, hate us by night? Check.

22. Local experts ignored? Check.

23. Local politicians ignored? Check.

24. Local conflicts since before the USA has been a country? Check.

25. Much confusion over who and where the enemy is? Check.

26. Against advice, Prez won't use taxes to pay for war? Check.

27. Blue water navy ships operating in brown water? Check.

28. Use of nukes hinted at if things don't go our way? Check.

29. War unpopular at home? Check.

30. No plan in place to end involvement? Check.

Vietnam II, you

----

Note that almost all 30 of these were right on target four years later.

Veterans for Common Sense

Another excellent source of advocacy for veterans is Veterans for Common Sense (VCS). Check it out to see what they are doing and to get on their email list. For example:

On Monday, July 23, 2007, VCS filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs for the shameful delays our veterans face when trying to see a VA doctor or when seeking VA disability benefits. VCS reluctantly filed suit to force VA leaders to fix their problems now so more of our veterans don't fall through the cracks.

On Wednesday, VCS offered practical solutions to Congress as part of our testimony about how the military and VA are improperly discharging thousands of veterans with a personality disorder diagnosis instead of post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.

The same day, VA informed Congress that more than 250,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans were already treated at VA hospitals, a shocking milestone the press failed to report to the public. Based on Harvard University Linda Bilmes report on the human and financial cost of the wars, VA can reasonably expect another 500,000 war veteran patients.

Also on Wednesday, S 1606 passed the full Senate. The Wounded Warrior bill, supported by VCS, offers service members and veterans some real hope of improving the broken transition from soldier to veteran. VCS urges you to call your local Representative and ask that S 1606 be approved by the House of Representatives before they go on vacation at the end of the week.

The next day, Dan Fahey, a member of our VCS board of directors, provided Congressional testimony about depleted uranium research for Gulf War veterans. Dan remains one of the most respected and articulate pro-veteran advocates on the issue of DU.

Finally, on Friday, newspapers reported that VA will consider a recommendation by Professor Bilmes and VCS that veterans' disability claims be approved for a nominal amount for a short period of time, while the claim us under review, so that veterans don't fall through the cracks.

What 'Support the Troops' Really Means...

The Bush administration said recently that it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill. The initiatives the administration "strongly oppose" include: (1) a military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent; (2) lowering the age to 60 to start the reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations; and (3) expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to servicemembers forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

Our sons and daughters continue to be sent off to confront the quagmire in Iraq. Mr. Bush & Co. not only do not care about veterans (see post below), but they also have a special deal for active duty troops - refusing to go along with a 3.5% pay raise for them. And the irony is that this money would be taken from them while they continue to do their professional best to make the best of a bad situation. That same money would then be available to add to the $1/2 trillion already thrown at Iraq.

So do you really still buy the 'Support the Troops' b.s. coming from the administration, the Repugs, and yes the Democrats, who so far have only made noise?

Who Will G.I.'s vote for in 2008?

(Yes, I know it's been awhile since I last posted - I plan to do so now again maybe once a week leading up to the elections)

On a recent national radio show, the above question was asked. I just couldn't help myself, so I sent in the following response:

As a 27-year veteran, your discussion about how candidates can get the votes of military people (and veterans) is full of irony. What should candidates think about, in my opinion?

1. First, we send our sons and daughters off to war, and then tie them up in a bureaucratic morass when they seek deserved health care while still on active duty and as veterans. We need the commitment to complete, responsive, and free health care to veterans – no questions asked, no delays in treatment, no disgraceful medical facilities, period. It is time for political leaders to step up to their responsibilities, regardless of their political persuasion. And, it’s time for our civilian leadership in the DoD and VA to remove all obstacles involved.
2. Our veterans crowd the ranks of the homeless and street people from the Vietnam war onwards. Homelessness and poverty are a national shame. How much more so for those who have fought and served for this country?
3. For all of my time on active duty, I was required to carry a Geneva Convention Card and I was required to understand and get updated training on the international rules of warfare and prisoner treatment. If we do not accept these agreed upon rules, we become no better than those whom we fight against. Restore the validity of the Geneva conventions, not just because it is morally right to do so, but because it protects OUR service men and women as well.
4. We must always be prepared to defend our right to exist as a country and to maintain our special place in world affairs as a democratic nation. As we have done for most of our history (especially during the Cold War), we must use warfare as an absolute last resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted, not as a pre-emptive method of carrying out political strategies.
5. Finally, I will support the candidate who best can find an honorable way to remove our troops from Iraq & Afghanistan as soon as possible. We are now in an almost impossible situation no matter which way we turn. So, many veterans, like myself will be asking ‘Who put us in this kind of position, and who has the best approach to ending our presence in both countries?”, and we will vote accordingly.

“If You Don’t Support the War, You Play Into the Hands of the Enemy, and you Help Destroy the Morale of the Troops…”

OK, regarding the ’morale of the troops’, let’s put the B.S. above to rest:

First, virtually no member of the administration or in Congress who makes this kind of statement ever served in the Armed Forces, therefore they don’t understand troop morale or anything about its dynamics.

Second, how many senior military officers in the news have made this kind of statement? Not very many – if any.

So, the administration and its remaining backers in Congress are using the troops and their ‘morale’ as pawns in making you feel guilty about your increasing opposition to the war in Iraq – 2/3rds of you in this country.

It’s a shameless tactic, it’s disgusting, it’s despicable – and most of all, it’s wrong.

Why?

- No soldier, airman, sailor, or marine worth his or her salt believes their morale is tied to what any politician or private citizen says or does.

- Many may not agree personally with what is going on, but the overwhelming majority will do their job anyway to the best of their ability. Why? They are professionals who will do their best to achieve the objectives they are given – that’s what they swore an oath to do - and they will do their best to protect each other so that they can come home safely, at some point.

One blogger puts it this way about the morale of soldiers:

...To the extent that they are concerned with political debates in Washington, it is mostly about the small picture: ensuring they get the tools and equipment they need to survive and get the job done. While they may be interested in grand strategy, it seldom motivates them to risk life and limb. They may agree or disagree with establishing a foothold for democracy in the Middle East but they fight for their comrades-in-arms, out of genuine concern for locale villagers whose situations they empathize with, and for hundreds of other reasons unique to each soldier.

That said, there are some things that definitely could and do impact troop morale, for example: failure of leadership (e.g. Abu Ghraib), improper and inadequate equipment to do the job and protect troops (e.g. body armor & helmets, HUMVEE armor), and failure to provide adequate and responsive health care and facilities (e.g. Walter Reed hospital recovery) to returning physically and mentally wounded veterans.

Bottom line: it’s way past time to put up or shut up with ‘supporting the troops’ - and really support them - and most importantly to stop putting the troops in the middle by mouthing a bunch of platitudes about troop morale and using them to threaten political opponents while dumping undeserved guilt on our citizens.

The War Gets Closer...A Time-Out

An email note from a friend:

"On Sunday a CH-47 Helicopter crashed in Afghanistan after the engine failed. On board was my closest and best friend, a U.S. Army Ranger. In the crash, eight soldiers died, but he survived. However, he is in serious condition with head trauma. He is in a trauma induced coma and has some back fractures. The doctors in Germany where they flew him had to remove some of his skull to stop the hemorrhaging, with the hopes that there will be no or less brain damage. I was with his family yesterday and talked to his wife; they are being flown out to Bethesda Naval hospital which has a head trauma unit today and will meet him there when he is transported.

I ask that prayers be made on his behalf that he would recover and that the family would endure."

...and I would add: also keep the families and friends of those who lost loved ones in your prayers as well...

New Talking Point Catch Phrase for the Repugs?

'...we didn't lie intentionally...'

No, it wasn't Tony Snow or another administration spokesperson - it was the Jet Blue rep on NPR this morning commenting on their no-news-to-the-customers approach during their Valentine's Day Massacre 9-hour plane entrapment on the ground.

Yet the phrase has a certain ring to it - you have to wonder why Snow et al haven't made use of it before the airlines beat them to the punch...

"I don't read them (newspapers) much, but..."

...from this morning's Presidential news conference...

And if you had read them on last Nov 8th (and since), Mr. President, you would know that 2/3rds of the people no longer support your performance in Iraq (including you, ironically) - although you don't appear to care about that. So what is it that makes you think that this country should continue to give you chances with regard to the lives of our sons and daughters? Have you earned it? Not especially - in fact you've cried the 'sky is falling' so many times since 9/11, that few believe you about ANYTHING anymore. In that sense, your administration has in fact made it more dangerous for us as a country. For example, Iran may well be involved in Iraq and a threat to our troops, but skepticsm is rampant about that report because of two things: Track record in telling us the truth - and past competency with regard to Iraq.

But while the Republican Congressional leadership of our country countinues to use our troops shamelessly as pawns (more on this later this week) by their continued mantras of 'you encourage the terrorists if you are not with us' - and - 'we need to fight them over there or otherwise we will fight them here' - the House at least is saying what it thinks it was recently elected to say.

Please pick up the papers more often Mr. President, although it probably won't do much good.

If He Can Do This, Appoint Him the Head of Our Homeland Security...

B.S. story of the day:

Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, who was named by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to head the new security crackdown in Baghdad, announced the new campaign, which he said would have the force of law, during a nationally televised speech in which he claimed sweeping emergency powers.

The border crossings to Iran and Syria will be temporarily closed effective immediately, as the Iraqi security forces tried the reassert control in this lawless capital city.

Good luck general - we'd love to know how you are going to do this...

Hiatus...

For readers, supporters, and critics - have had to take some time off, but plan to be back after the holidays. However, I am going to make one change to the blog in the meantime: delete the Rumsfeld timeclock to the right when he is officially gone. While the clock reads 957 days and counting today, we are really talking about more than 35 years of his ideas and policies, over several administrations, that will now require massive overhaul to restore readiness, equipment, and real support of the troops - and which have also resulted in significant negative impacts on our Reserves, National Guard, and veterans.

Have a great holiday season!