What is worse than a leader of an international terrorist network hellbent on the destruction of the United States? How about a racist leader of an international terrorist network hellbent on the destruction of the United States:
Al-Zawahri says in an audio message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X. He calls Obama a "house negro."
Spencer Ackerman points out the IO benefits to this statement. Ilan Goldenberg develops this idea further. Al-Qaeda sees a threat to their narrative with the election of Barack Obama. Particularly, that we have illustrated tolerance in our society by electing an African-American President with Muslim ancestry. It flies in the face of their portrayal of an evil Zionist empire. Al-Qaeda is scared of international respect for America and the restoration of our nation as a moral leader. This fear has exposed the racial hatred of upper echelons of Al Qaeda leadership.
Who's in charge of policy formulation in the military these days? This is getting ridiculous. It's not just a ban on masks for Iraqi interpreters anymore. Now it's beards in Afghanistan:
KABUL--As the U.S. military garners increasing counterinsurgency experience in America's long-standing war in Afghanistan, soldiers are questioning one military restriction that has long been the norm within the U.S. armed forces: the prohibition against beards.
The military says it has good reasons for the beard ban for most American troops--including hygiene, soldierly discipline, and the ability to get a good seal on gas masks should troops need them.
Right. Real big threat of chemical attacks in rural Afghanistan. Good thinkin' guys.
There is an exception, though, for special operations forces to enable them to better blend with locals. Senior military officials point out that special operations forces have more experience and maturity than other troops, so that lax grooming standards will not lead to a degeneration of other forms of discipline.
Do these "senior military officials" see the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions and think Delta Tau Chi? Probably so, I'd guess. But then, these same "senior military officials" are likely career staff officers who've never met a "real" Afghan or Iraqi.
Still, the restriction often garners some eye-rolling among regular troops who think that growing beards would also benefit them in interactions with Afghans. Troops increasingly argue that beard growth is hardly a disciplinary slippery slope for soldiers and marines on long tours with a great deal of interaction with the locals.
This is not so much an issue in the comparatively less conservative capital city of Kabul, where many Afghan men don't wear beards. But in other areas of the country, the more tradition-oriented regions, beards are a symbol of manhood--just as much a sign of social norms as the clean-shaven faces of U.S. soldiers are regarded as a symbol of American military order.
Some U.S. troops are beginning to buck the beard rule, however, both with and without the permission of senior commanders.
One soldier in the violent border area of Kunar province estimates that his combat outpost gets attacked almost daily. But when the base received a visit recently from a commanding officer, the soldier recalls, "the main thing" he told the soldiers is that they needed to shave more frequently. They did shave, but they felt they gathered better intelligence with locals when they were unshaven, as locals felt more comfortable talking to bearded men.
Typical. I want to know the name of the non-combatant who thought this was a good idea. Because it's clearly not someone who's ever fought in a counterinsurgency. I know Generals Petraeus, McKiernan, and Odierno have a lot on their respective plates, but maybe they could delegate someone to look into this rash of bad ideas we're now experiencing. It's becoming a problem.
I miss the Army all the time. In fact, I'm always on the verge of joining a Reserve or National Guard unit. But then I read shit like this and I remember why I said I'd never go back in. Ever.
The traditional media and the military blogosphere are up in arms over the new policy that bans Iraqi translators from wearing masks--and for good reason it now seems.
When I wrote about this yesterday, I withheld judgment. Army Lt. Col. Steve Stover's comments about translators in the Washington Post just seemed too careless. I assumed there had to be more to the story--maybe something I wasn't seeing. For those who missed it, here's what Stover said with regard to the new policy banning Iraqi translators from wearing masks:
"We are a professional Army and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military, wrote in an e-mail. He expressed appreciation for the service and sacrifice of the interpreters but said those dissatisfied with the new policy "can seek alternative employment."
He went on to callously conclude:
Stover, the U.S. military spokesman, said he didn't know how many interpreters have resigned or been reassigned as a result of the mask rule.
In any case, he said, the Baghdad command "is not having problems, as the contractor is not having any issues filling our translators/interpreters requirement."
Unfortunately, it seems that, well, maybe I was seeing everything there was to see.
Despite the fact that Donald Rumsfeld called service members "fungible" in 2004, they're not. And while Lt. Col. Stover obviously doesn't realize it, the same goes for translators. And I'm not the only one who sees it this way. The reaction across print media and in the military blogosphere has been swift and one-sided. Take the examples below.
Writing for the New Yorker from Iraq, George Packer rips into both Stover and the policy:
I'm sorry, LTC Stover, but this is stupidity and callousness posing as rectitude. For years, Iraqis working with American units were allowed to hide their faces so that they could keep their heads on their necks. The new order has already led to firings and a significant number of resignations, as well as desperate measures--one interpreter smearing his face with mascara, another hoping that a new beard will keep his identity secret. This is the kind of order that headquarters dreams up and combat troops detest.
Exactly what code of conduct is being maintained here? Iraqis aren't in the American chain of command. They don't take an oath; they don't fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they did, they would be given regulation uniforms. They wouldn't be allowed to use aliases. They would be housed on bases rather than obliged to make the dangerous trip home every night. They would receive pensions, health insurance, and death benefits. When one of them gets killed, the military would hold a ceremony. The widow would receive a flag. A grateful nation would remember.
All true. And I fully expect Lt. Col. Stover to feel like a jackass when he reads Packer's piece. But if he misses it, maybe he'll catch the sentiments steaming out of Portland in regard to the Army's new "foolish and cruel policy"--as described by the Editorial Board of The Oregonian:
In a triumph of bureaucratic small-mindedness over human empathy, the Army now forbids the Iraqi interpreters from wearing masks to conceal their faces while working with U.S. troops. Iraqi interpreters continue to receive threats, and some are killed, because they collaborate with Americans.
The only rationale expressed for this new policy seems to be the flippant statement of Army spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Stover. . . .
::
::
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or. and others, including Oregon's own Checkpoint One Foundation, a nonprofit, are protesting the Army's unconscionable new policy. Here's hoping that the outcry is loud enough to cause somebody with an ounce of compassion to slap his forehead and reverse the ban on letting Iraqis use a few inches of fabric to protect their identities.
Vermont's Times Argus doesn't mince words and all but flat-out blames REMFs for the new policy:
Few aspects of war are more infuriating than the loss of lives that result largely from flawed reasoning by the brass who do their thinking far from the action.
One old, but good, example: In World War I, Britain's military decision-makers concluded that airmen of the Royal Flying Corps - the precursor to the Royal Air Force - should not have parachutes because they were too heavy, too large and, most importantly, too likely to encourage crews to bail out prematurely.
Consequently, many British airmen were killed over France's bloody battlefields when their flimsy craft were hit by enemy fire and they had no safe way out. None of the decision-makers lost their lives that way, of course. They were snug, smug and safe back in London.
That kind of thinking hasn't entirely vanished. According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, the U.S. Army has forbidden Iraqi interpreters from using masks to hide their identities from radicals who view them as traitors.
Even now "The Mahdi Army, the armed group led by anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, collects and distributes photos of interpreters working with U.S. troops." Also, consider Mexico, where federal troops battling drug cartels in Chihuahua don't "dare show their faces, wearing ski masks instead." If federal soldiers in Mexico are that frightened, one can only imagine what the Iraqi interpreters are experiencing.
In a war that offers few clear choices, this seems like a nonsensical policy that appears to only endanger those Iraqis that have actually chosen to help us. There is no reason to add to the "nearly 300 interpreters" slain since 2003 in Iraq. The truth is that despite the improving security situation the country remains a very violent place to live and work, and it will remain so for years to come even after the current withdrawal deadline of 2011.
Since I had the pleasure of working on a staff in Iraq for a year, allow me to shed some light on how these policies are born.
A Flag Officer mentions at a staff meeting that Iraqis working with the coalition "need to look more professional"
Colonel sits his cell down and says "Team, the general wants our Iraqi troopers looking better, we need a 'Way Ahead'"
Lt. Colonel or a motivated Major comes up with a "Great Idea" to unmask terps without thinking about the consequences
Disgruntled Majors and Disheveled Captains/LTs (that's me) forced to make 10-slide powerpoint highlighting "The Way Ahead" for "A newly aligned Professionalism"
General sees powerpoint and congratulates Colonel and his team for their contributions to the war effort at the next weekly staff meeting
So the big question is who is to blame? Is it the General for upholding professional standards, the Colonel for trying to get things done, the Junior Officers for doing what they are told? No, it's the goddamn Good Idea Fairy's fault! Luckily, someone at the O-5/O-6 level can cut down ideas like this by saying "Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard", but that process seems to have failed in this case.
Even the guys at Blackfive think Lt. Col. Stover is shilling for a stupid policy:
I'm sorry Steve, you f**king idiot, but your desire and whichever idiot flag officer you represent's desire for conformity and uniformity is not important enough to get better men than you killed. If you are so hell bent on having uniform looking terps then haul your FOB sitting ass out among the populace and let's see how you fare.
However, I thought the best response to the new policy by far was that left as a comment in my original piece by Iraq veteran IrritatedVet:
This should be one of those old Bud Light commercials, "Real Men of Genius."
"Here's to you, staff officer Douchebag, for doing all you can to shoot our forces in the foot yet again. Grab a cold Bud Light, Mister, and say, 'Yeah, they took another one for the team, and I got a good bullet point on my OER!'"
All humor aside, this is a deadly serious situation with thousands of lives at stake. In my view, this is a policy that should be implemented by those at the company level. Like I said yesterday, there's no way that this somehow falls under the jurisdiction of anyone at the MNF level. I think the military should encourage--even urge--translators to take off the masks for a number of reasons, but you can't make it a blanket policy.
There are too many variables at play here. Consider, if your platoon or company has a good, trusted interpreter, that Iraqi can sometimes be the most important member of the team. I haven't been there in a long time, but when I was, our interpreters weren't there to simply translate words from Arabic to English: They were the best intelligence gatherers in the battalion; they were deal makers between us and the local community; they cultivated relationships; and sometimes they even provided input during mission planning. And when you're in middle of an insurgency, having a local like this on your side can, indeed, make the difference between mission success and mission failure.
Now, not all interpreters are this valuable. Some are just there for the paycheck. But when you have a translator like one I described above, it makes no sense to possibly force them into resignation over the image they project. In a case like that, it just wouldn't be worth it. It's too bad that officers like Lt. Col. Stover--and whoever he's representing--somehow think the well being of contractors is more important.
This is a big deal, and at VoteVets we don't intend to let it slide. Too many of us owe our lives to Iraqi interpreters. And for that, we can at least try to prevent counterinsurgency amateurs in the Green Zone from jeopardizing the lives of those on whom we've depended.
I know this is a sensitive subject. It always has been and it always will be. But the fact of the matter is that soldiers come from all walks of life. I have met soldiers from the inner city slums of New York and from the backwoods farm areas of Mississippi. I have met soldiers from wealthy families and those who were dirt poor. They join for numerous reasons. Some want to serve their country. Some need the educational benefits. Some join to help get their citizenship. But they all share one common attribute. They all have left their civilian world and gone through the transformation process that takes a civilian and instills discipline, work ethic, and the necessary grit to be a US soldier. They come from all races, nationalities, and religious backgrounds. And some are gay.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote
I point out the last part of that paragraph for a reason. Many people wonder the "what ifs" of this issue. "If we allow gays to serve openly, then ___ will happen. The fact is, several nations already allow this. Many of them are our allies. When I was in Kuwait, prior to our push into Iraq in 2003, my unit shared a tent with a British unit. Our soldiers already deploy to combat operations with openly gay soldiers serving right alongside them.
The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.
"I know a lot of young people now - even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons - and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.
The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.
If we want to support the troops, we need to support ALL the troops. The discrimination based on sexual orientation is already costing us valuable resources on the battlefield.
The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.
Hopefully, under the leadership of a new Commander-in-Chief we will see an end to this type of policy. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that the "Buffalo soldiers" were seen as a threat. This is the last form of discrimination facing our military.
We're less than $400 dollars away from reaching our goal for Vietnam Vet and VoteVets.org endorsed Senate candidate Jim Martin. Jim is running against the worst excuse for a human imaginable Saxby Chambliss, who ran a despicable attack ad against disabled Vietnam Veteran Max Cleland that.., well here are Max's words:
My opponent at the time, Saxby Chambliss, disagreed; running a television commercial against me that not only had Osama Bin Laden's face morphing into mine but also questioned my "courage to lead." I felt at the time that surely, my service and my sacrifice in Vietnam would be seen in a more positive light than that of Mr. Chambliss's, who was forced to miss the war with a bum knee.
Max left three limbs on the battlefield, while Saxby got six deferments including one for a knee injury, but still manages to have the second lowest gold handicap of any U.S. Senator. Yet Saxby still thinks he can attack the patriotism of Max Cleland and get away with it.
Let's show Saxby he's wrong. Help us reach our goal by donating $10, $15 or $20 to help Jim Martin insure that Six-Deferment-Chambliss no longer has a desk on Capitol Hill.
BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military has barred Iraqi interpreters working with American troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to disguise themselves, prompting some to resign and others to bare their faces even though they fear it could get them killed.
Many Iraqis, however, fear the relative calm won't last long. To them, ordering interpreters to work without masks suggests that some top U.S. officials are taking an unrealistically rosy view of the security situation in Baghdad, which remains a dangerous city.
U.S. military officials said they began to enforce the mask ban in September because security in Baghdad has improved dramatically.
"We are a professional Army and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military, wrote in an e-mail. He expressed appreciation for the service and sacrifice of the interpreters but said those dissatisfied with the new policy "can seek alternative employment."
Part of me gets what they're trying to do here. I understand that we're trying to instill a culture of professionalism in a society plagued by corruption and a long history of not being able to face one's accuser.
That said, most of me thinks this new policy was probably thought up by a bored staff officer who's never had to go house-to-house in Baghdad, or had to place his or her life in the hands of an Iraqi translator. But this isn't a decision that should be made at the MNF level. This is a company grade decision, and it should vary from company to company.
And one other thing about this closing passage of the piece:
Stover, the U.S. military spokesman, said he didn't know how many interpreters have resigned or been reassigned as a result of the mask rule.
In any case, he said, the Baghdad command "is not having problems, as the contractor is not having any issues filling our translators/interpreters requirement."
For a comment like that, this Stover guy should be barred from military service anywhere within 500 miles of an ongoing counterinsurgency operation. And anyone who doesn't understand why that sort of comment is significant can go with him.
UPDATE: Okay, maybe I was a little too nice. LT Nixon breaks it down.
With Iraq's cabinet passing a security agreement that will dictate the future of the US role in Iraq, and Parliament being poised to pass it as well, the question now is not at what pace US troops should remove themselves from Iraq, but how to do it in a responsible way that keeps a number of powder kegs from exploding.
The answer comes down to one word - Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is as important for keeping Iraq stable as it is for making sure that US troops are not targets of attacks by insurgents, or caught in the crossfire of an explosion of sectarian violence, as we begin to pull back. And, there is no doubt that there are a number of tensions that could explode, if the US and the next administration does not engage in intense diplomacy not just within the borders of Iraq, but with regional players, as well.
Everything from an oil revenue sharing plan, to the governing of Kirkuk, to Sunni concerns about their own role in the new Iraq, to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and everything else in between could be subject to a small spark that sets of a chain reaction of powder kegs.
Only constant diplomatic and political attention can keep each of those things from blowing up. Diplomacy becomes even more intensely needed when you consider that the security pact includes a timeline for all US troops to be out of cities and towns by June, 2009. That is an extremely ambitious timeline by any standard.
However, there is some hope that just the promise of diplomacy is already playing a role, and can succeed under the Obama administration, if the President-Elect keeps his promise to engage in talks. From today's New York Times:
Several political analysts suggested that Iranian opposition to the pact had softened because of the American presidential election victory of Senator Barack Obama. He has suggested a more diplomatic approach to Tehran and has described a withdrawal timetable from Iraq faster even than the one laid out in the security agreement, though recently he has qualified that stance.
"If George Bush's presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned," said Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Having this administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians."
Iranians pulling back their opposition gave flexibility to Iraqi Shiite Cleric Ali al-Sistani to support the deal, which was key to it moving ahead. So, we can see what Barack Obama said during the campaign already showing promise.
Now, it will be up to President Obama to follow-up on the promise of diplomacy to get Iraqi and regional players to all work towards their mutual interest. This includes not just the Iranians, and Shiite leaders, but the Sunni minority and their allies in the Syrian government, which still opposes the deal, as well as the Kurds and Turkey, to settle their tensions, including the future of Kirkuk.
It's a tall order, even if we were talking about a President already in office. With less than six months after he takes office until US troops are expected to be removed from cities and towns in Iraq, President Obama will have absolutely no time to spare.
Last week, I presented some data that showed how military communities shifted away from the Republican Party in 2008. Shortly after I posted it, Peter Holm, a Ph.D. candidate who studies the military and political attitudes, also released his own information. His academic work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is clearly much more robust than mine, but he reaches the same conclusion:
Although Obama still fell well shy of a majority in these counties (achieving 42.6% of the two-party vote, on average), the strong performance of a relatively young and inexperienced Democrat running against a decorated Republican war hero is highly suggestive that military allegiance to the Grand Old Party is on the wane.
It's a really interesting piece, and you can read the whole thing here.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An extensive federal report released Monday concludes that roughly one in four of the 697,000 U.S. veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War suffer from Gulf War illness.
That illness is a condition now identified as the likely consequence of exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides and a drug administered to protect troops against nerve gas.
The 452-page report states that "scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans."
The report, compiled by a panel of scientific experts and veterans serving on the congressionally mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, fails to identify any cure for the malady.
It also notes that few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time.
The report, titled "Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans," was officially presented Monday to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peak.
If you're in the IRR, you've likely gotten at least one of those harassing emails from a career counselor. You know, the ones where he or she implies that by not joining a unit, you're likely to be involuntarily mobilized and sent back overseas. I documented and published three such emails back in June, where, in one case, an E-7 from the 99th Regional Readiness Command had even attached a mock mobilization order just for effect. And, as we all know, nothing screams professionalism like sending a three-tour combat veteran a mock mobilization order.
I took an interest and published the emails after two things happened in May: First, I received a flurry of these emails forwarded to me by fellow IRR soldiers--from E-4 to O-3--who were getting pissed at the career counselor tactics. Second, around this same time, my mom had two of these career counselors show up at her door using the same lines. They played good cop/bad cop with her and pretty much tried to make her think they were going to get me deployed if she didn't turn over my personal information. And that was where I drew the line.
So I produced the emails--and described what had happened at my parents' house--in a single VetVoice piece on June 2nd. When I did, it generated a lot of attention in IRR circles because it resonated with soldiers. Most could relate.
But rather than simply complain and highlight, I figured we should try to correct the situation. So to make a long story short, I ended up running the emails and the story up the chain of command--pretty much all the way. And on Friday, I received a letter that had been sent from the Army to the office of my parents' United States Senator. Note the circled passage:
If the image above is too small, here's the text:
Dear Senator Landrieu:
This is in reply to your inquiry on behalf of Captain Brandon Friedman, requesting information regarding the conduct of Army Reserve Career Counselors while visiting his mother at her home in Shreveport, Louisiana.
After reviewing this matter, I have determined there was no intent by the Army Reserve Career Counselors to defraud or coerce Mrs. ------- Friedman. There was no intent of misrepresentation by Sergeant First Class ------ -. ------ or Master Sergeant ----- -----. The intent of their visit was to contact Captain Friedman and offer Army Reserve affiliation opportunities. Intimidation or threats of mobilization will not be tolerated.
In order to prevent further misunderstandings between individual ready reserve Soldiers and Army Reserve Career Counselors, I have issued the following directives:
a.When communicating with individual ready reserve Soldiers, Career Counselors will not use any tactics that could give the impression they will be deployed if they do not join an Army Reserve unit.
b. Career Counselors will limit discussions with family members regarding the whereabouts of the individual ready reserve Soldiers.
The Army Reserve Careers Division will ensure all Army Reserve Career Counselors understand and adhere to current policies and procedures when contacting individual ready reserve Soldiers.
Sincerely,
John R. Ligon
Colonel, US Army
Commanding
So a couple of things here. First and foremost, Colonel Ligon is a stand-up guy for not only acknowledging the problem, but for tackling it in short order. Second, most people in the Army, on any given day, are gonna do the right thing. So if you're in a situation, and something seems fucked up, it probably is. And if you say something to someone, there's a good chance that you can get it fixed. Which brings up the third point: If anyone receives one of those obnoxious emails from a career counselor from now on, that career counselor is in violation of Army Reserve policy. So if you get one, please forward it along. And lastly, if anyone can get their hands on a copy of the actual directive, I'd be interested to see it.
Again, the problem here isn't that soldiers in the IRR are annoyed about receiving information on Army Reserve opportunities. The problem is that, for several years, career counselors have been allowed to operate using a very "loose" version of professionalism in their efforts to bring troops back in. And that isn't acceptable. Thankfully, the Army now seems to agree.
Bottom line: Saxby Chambliss and his ilk need to understand that you can't get six deferments out of Vietnam and then question the patriotism of an American hero and get away with it. Let's not let this one go. Saxby Chambliss said Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, didn't have the courage to lead:
The same Saxby Chambliss is now engaged in a runoff election against a battle buddy of Max Cleland: Vietnam Vet and VoteVets.org endorsed candidate Jim Martin.
The key to winning runoff elections is turnout. Whatever donation you can spare to help us get to our goal of $1,000 will help get out the vote in Georgia. A $20 donation can be used to buy half a tank of gas to drive car loads of Vets to the polls for Jim Martin. Lets get enough votes out to show all of Washington that Veterans will not tolerate the radical anti-troop, anti-Veteran agenda of elected officials like Saxby Chambliss.
After his brief remarks, the former Republican presidential nominee stepped into the crowd to shake hands with the GOP faithful at the Cobb Energy Center. After the rally, McCain planned to attend a private fundraiser for Chambliss.
Chambliss is bringing out the big guns to support his crusade against troops and Veterans. If you had any doubt that Jim needs our help, this should quell it.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.
"Today, the flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished and al-Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield," Hayden told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a bipartisan group that deals with international affairs.
Let me guess: He's gonna say that the "central front" is now in Pakistan.
But he warned that al-Qaeda remains "a determined, adaptive enemy" that is resilient and operating "from its safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas."
No one ever could've predicted. These guys crack me up.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, the chickenhawk Senator from Georgia, is defending his deplorable attacks on disabled Veteran Max Cleland:
The ad in question shows Max Cleland, a former Army officer who came home from Vietnam as a triple amputee, next to pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and alleges that Cleland lacked the courage to lead. That's right. Saxby Chambliss said that a man who left three limbs on the battlefield while leading troops didn't have the courage to lead.
This isn't about red states or blue states. This isn't about a minority firewall, or a 60 vote majority. This isn't about party politics. This is about honor, a concept which evades Saxby Chambliss.
So let's do this one for Max. Saxby is now in a run-off election with another Vietnam Veteran and VoteVets endorsed candidate, Jim Martin. Let's raise $1,000, as a community of Veterans, to send a message to those who would challenge the patriotism of any elected official, especially any Veteran, for political gain. Let's send a message to Saxby Chambliss that 6-deferment-chickenhawks can't question the courage of those of us who have sacrificed, and get away with it.
For the past week, people have been coming to me asking if I had any data on the 2008 military vote. The questions were typical: Did the myth of overwhelming military support for Republicans bear out? Did Obama change that? Just who, exactly, do military communities support? And to what extent?
Unfortunately, I hadn't really come up with much until today. But now, using general election data provided by the New York Times, I was able to determine that the military communities most affected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shifted significantly toward Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in 2008 when compared to the numbers from 2004.
Here's how I did it: The New York Times put together a set of graphics that showed every county in the United States. Each county was color-coded to reveal the shift in that county's vote--whether it went more Republican or more Democratic--from 2004 to 2008. They were done according to percentage changes, and shades of red symbolized movement toward McCain and the Republicans, while shades of blue represented a shift toward Obama and the Democrats.
After examining the New York Times data, I consulted the Los Angeles Times graphic that shows for whom each county in America voted--Obama or McCain.
With that information, I identified the county's across the country that contain military bases housing America's primary Army and Marine Corps ground combat forces--the very forces responsible for most of the fighting.
What I found was striking, though not all that surprising: Of the 15 military communities I looked at, 11 shifted toward the Democrats and Barack Obama, two had insufficient data to make a determination, and only two shifted toward John McCain and the Republicans.
That said, despite the overwhelming gains made by Obama and the Democrats, the Republican Party in some of these communities still enjoyed enough support to put McCain over the top in eight of the 15 communities. Six of the 15 military communities ultimately voted for Obama, and one community split its two counties between McCain and Obama. Here are the results:
Military Base: Camp Pendleton
Service: Marine Corps
County: San Diego
State: California
Major Combat Unit: 1st Marine Division
Shift from 2004: 10-20%
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: Barack Obama
Military Base: Camp LeJeune
Service: Marine Corps
County: Onslow
State: North Carolina
Major Combat Unit: 2nd Marine Division
Shift from 2004: 10-20%
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Benning
Service: Army
County: Muscogee
State: Georgia
Major Combat Units: 3rd Infantry Division, 3rd Ranger Battalion
Shift from 2004: 10-20%
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: Barack Obama
Military Base: Fort Bragg
Service: Army
County: Cumberland
State: North Carolina
Major Combat Units: 82nd Airborne Division, 3rd Special Forces Group, 7th Special Forces Group
Shift from 2004: 20%+
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: Barack Obama
Military Base: Fort Campbell
Service: Army
Counties: Christian and Montgomery
State: Kentucky and Tennessee
Major Combat Units: 101st Airborne Division, 5th Special Forces Group
Shift from 2004: 5-10% (KY) 10-20% (TN)
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Carson
Service: Army
County: El Paso
State: Colorado
Major Combat Units: 4th Infantry Division, 10th Special Forces Group
Shift from 2004: 10-20%
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Drum
Service: Army
County: Jefferson
State: New York
Major Combat Unit: 10th Mountain Division
Shift from 2004: 0-5%
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Hood
Service: Army
County: Bell
State: Texas
Major Combat Units: 4th Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
Shift from 2004: 20%+
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Lewis
Service: Army
County: Pierce
State: Washington
Major Combat Units: 2nd Infantry Division, 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group
Shift from 2004: Insufficient Data
Shift in Favor of: Insufficient Data
Elected: Barack Obama
Military Base: Fort Polk
Service: Army
Parish: Vernon
State: Louisiana
Major Combat Unit: 10th Mountain Division
Shift from 2004: 5-10%
Shift in Favor of: Republicans/McCain
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Richardson
Service: Army
County: Anchorage
State: Alaska
Major Combat Unit: 25th Infantry Division
Shift from 2004: 10-20%
Shift in Favor of: Republicans/McCain
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Riley
Service: Army
Counties: Geary and Riley
State: Kansas
Major Combat Unit: 1st Infantry Division
Shift from 2004: 10-20% (both)
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Fort Stewart
Service: Army
Counties: Liberty and Bryan
State: Georgia
Major Combat Units: 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Ranger Battalion
Shift from 2004: 20%+ (Liberty County) 10-20% (Bryan County)
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Military Base: Fort Wainwright
Service: Army
County: Fairbanks North Star Borough
State: Alaska
Major Combat Unit: 25th Infantry Division
Shift from 2004: Insufficient data
Shift in Favor of: Insufficient data
Elected: John McCain
Military Base: Schofield Barracks
Service: Army
County: Honolulu
State: Hawaii
Major Combat Unit: 25th Infantry Division
Shift from 2004: 20%+
Shift in Favor of: Democrats/Obama
Elected: Barack Obama
While this is certainly no academic study, we can still learn a lot from it. First, however, it should be noted that no conclusions can be derived from this data to support the idea that military communities are either conservative or liberal. What the data does show is that, in 2008, the communities most affected by repeated deployments of ground combat units overwhelmingly shifted their votes in favor of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Of the two that shifted toward John McCain and the Republicans, one of them--Fort Richardson--is located only a few miles from Sarah Palin's hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.
It's also worth pointing out that six and a half of the 15 communities experiencing significant shifts toward Obama still voted for McCain. To me, this comes across as some serious anger. We're talking about communities that were obviously deeply conservative in 2004--like Fort Hood, TX and Fort Stewart, GA--which were able to shift more than 20 percentage points in favor of Barack Obama in 2008, and still lose to McCain in the end.
With these numbers, there can be no doubt that the military communities that have paid the most in time and lives lost over the past seven years have moved considerably away from both Bush policies and McCain's attempts to extend them. While Republican support is still strong in these communities, the election of 2008 demonstrates that without comprehensive changes in the way the military is utilized by the government, that support is on a trend to evaporate. Combat-experienced military communities sent a message in 2008: Keep the year-long deployments going, keep the bellicose rhetoric up, and you will lose elections to Democrats.
Another way to look at this is that military communities like George W. Bush more than they like John McCain. And that's bad.
I also find it slightly amusing to consider, then, that John McCain ran his entire campaign on the "success" of the "surge" in Iraq--a "fact" that meant we were "winning." And yet the military communities to whom he was directly speaking moved in the direction of Obama. Talk about out of touch.
UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention that some of these Obama/Democratic counties are quite large--like San Diego and Honolulu--and have much more diverse populations than the others. This, of course, is true and it definitely dilutes the affect of the military communities in those counties. Nevertheless, the fact that counties like Muscogee (Fort Benning, GA) and Cumberland (Fort Bragg, NC)--which are much more homogeneous--both shifted to Obama and elected Obama is quite telling.
So it turns out that breathing in all that burning MRE plastic, walking through Iraqi raw sewage, and inhaling the oil smoke from blown pipelines isn't quite as healthy as we all thought it was. That's why Nora Eisenberg has a scary-but-needed piece in the UK's Guardian in which she talks about the exposure to toxins that troops face in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thousands of soldiers coming home from the war may have been exposed to chemicals that are known to cause cancers and neurological problems. What's most tragic is that the veterans themselves do not always realise that they are in danger from chemical poisoning. Right now, there is no clear way for Iraq war veterans to find out what they've been exposed to and where to get help.
In October, the Military Times reported on the open-air pits on US bases in Iraq, where troops incinerate tons of waste. Because of such pits, tens of thousands of soldiers may be breathing air contaminated with burning Freon, jet fuel and other carcinogens. According to reports, soldiers are coughing up blood or the black goop that has been nicknamed "plume crud".
In other cases, soldiers may have been exposed to poisons spread during efforts to restore Iraq's infrastructure.
It's an interesting read--and I'm sure it'll make you think back on all the times you sucked down noxious fumes in theater and thought, "Well, I'm sure that won't cause any long-term damage."
President-elect Barack Obama wants to renew the U.S. commitment to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to his national security advisers.
We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority," Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.
But tracking down bin Laden won't be easy.
In May, al Qaeda released an audiotape featuring bin Laden. But U.S. intelligence officials say they haven't had a solid lead on the terrorist mastermind's whereabouts since late 2001, when he was nearly captured in a battle with U.S. forces near Tora Bora, Afghanistan.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer, told CNN he's talked to "a dozen CIA guys who've been on the hunt for him, and half of them told me they assumed he was dead, the other half said they assumed he was alive, but the key word here is assume. They don't know."
Shouldn't this have been priority #1 since 9/11? The longer Bin Laden roams free, the more the various terror groups see this as a sign. You can attack America and nothing will happen to you. The problem is, we've been looking in the wrong place.
Intelligence officials believe bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, a remote and primitive region with mountain peaks as tall as 14,000 feet (4,270 meters) that make the terrain difficult to navigate.
You see, Osama is most likely in Pakistan--not Iraq. For some reason, we have been throwing all of our troops, equipment, money, and other resources into a country that had nothing to do with Bin Laden. Now under a new CinC, we can finally get back to what we should have been doing all along.
Obama plans to send more troops into Afghanistan to push back the growing Taliban insurgency, but experts warn there could be severe consequences.
"The president is going to inherit the problem the Soviets had roughly 15 years ago during the Soviet jihad. You cannot tame the people in the North-West Frontier Province and on the border in Pakistan and Afghanistan," said Dalton Fury, the commander of special operations at Tora Bora.
"The only army that has been successful has been Genghis Khan and his Mongol horde. They cut off heads and killed everyone in the villages, and since we have self-imposed rules of warfare, we are not going to do what they did."
Cooperation from Pakistan's military has been touchy, and most experts agree finding bin Laden is just not a priority for Pakistan's troops
So we have the Pakistani troops and government working against us. We have the cuts to our military that Admiral Mullen is already suggesting, due to expending all resources in Iraq. And we have a tremendous difficulty getting allies back on board to work with us. It will be an uphill battle in more ways than one.
You know things are going poorly when photos like this start showing up:
(AP photo)
Those are Taliban militants in Pakistan with one of their brand new armored humvees that they stole after ambushing a convoy of supplies headed for U.S.-led forces across the border in Afghanistan.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Suspected Taliban fighters hijacked trucks carrying Humvees and other supplies for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan, authorities said Tuesday after a brazen attack near the Khyber Pass that underscored the militants' grip across key mountain strongholds.
The assault highlighted the vulnerability of a vital supply route for the 65,000 U.S. and NATO forces battling a resurgent Taliban in landlocked Afghanistan. A significant amount of supplies for the Western forces go through Pakistan.
Attacks on convoys carrying food, fuel and other supplies are common on the road. But Monday's raid was especially large and well-organized. It also could further strain U.S.-Pakistani relations over rooting out Taliban and al-Qaida militants along the border, which remain entrenched despite military offensives and U.S. missile strikes.
Some 60 masked militants blocked the route at several points before overpowering the convoy, said Fazal Mahmood, a government official in Khyber tribal region. He identified the attackers as members of Pakistan's Taliban movement.
Security forces traded fire with the gunmen, but were forced to retreat, he said. The militants took about 13 trucks along with the drivers, who were believed to be Pakistani.
A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan confirmed the thefts late Tuesday.
"There were some U.S. military materials that were taken - Humvees and water tank trailers," said Maj. John Redfield.
Of course, that photo above looks like something straight out of the 1980s when the mujahedeen used to do this all the time to the Soviets. And we all know how that turned out.
Now, I want to get out of Afghanistan as much as anyone, but this episode highlights the danger in leaving that place to its own devices. Unlike Iraq, we don't even control the main roads in Afghanistan--much less in Pakistan, where this attack took place. That's a huge liability. And it guarantees that if we leave under the current conditions, Taliban militants will immediately seize control of Kabul and reinstate the form of government that was so hospitable to Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11.
It's amazing that we've made so little progress in seven years (though, maybe not when you consider the reasons why). However, the rapidly deteriorating situation is one that needs to be addressed immediately. We all know that the long-term solution in Afghanistan is education and infrastructure--not military force. But at this point, we have no choice but insert more combat forces into the fray in order to secure this free-wheeling fundamentalist circus they've got going on now.
It starts with photos of seized, empty military vehicles from an ambushed convoy. If we're not careful, it ends with photos of a seized convoy full of U.S.-backed Afghan government officials or U.S. military leaders.
"Friedman tells stories well, with a keen eye for war's absurdities and his own fading illusions of war's glory."--Baltimore Sun
"Emotionally honest. . .(Friedman) allows readers to experience things alongside him, rather than merely gasp in awe at his heroics or sit clucking in judgment."--Dallas Morning News
"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.
