It's hard to read this in a good way. Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in yesterday's Washington Post that the elections this year would make us vulnerable. It's a very weird quote, and one that a military officer in a country that isn't a banana republic probably shouldn't be making.
The nation's top military officer warned yesterday that the transition to a new American president will mark a "time of vulnerability" as the United States fights two wars, and he said military leaders are already actively preparing for the changing of the guard.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, said the U.S. political transition will be "extraordinarily challenging," particularly as the military is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and faces interference in both countries from Iran.
Okay, first off, sounds a little bit like he's questioning the fact that we're having elections. This strikes me as inappropriate coming for the uniformed military, or anyone else for that matter. It also sounds like he's cranking up the "scary" in order to help the Republicans win the elections. That's just as inappropriate from a member of our military. Then he said the following:
Offering an unusual insight into how senior military leaders are anticipating the transition to a new president, Mullen said he is continually thinking about how military decisions taken today will play out under a new administration.
"There are very few either briefings or meetings that I'm in that I'm not thinking about 'How does what we're talking about right now transition to next spring?' " Mullen said. He said U.S. commanders in regions overseas, as well as chiefs of the different services, are having similar discussions.
The transition is unlikely to be smooth, predicted Mullen, who assumed his position seven months ago for a two-year term. He said he hopes to offer a stabilizing influence as a military leader who will bridge two administrations.
Gee, you think? You just told all of your men and women that our elections are a "vulnerability" and that the transition won't be smooth - and now you think it might not go smoothly? Perhaps expressing a little confidence in our democracy might be a better lesson to give our troops. Totally inappropriate behavior from a military leader.
Read the title of this article from ABC. Why is it "surprising" that our troops in Iraq support Obama? Now, while the article itself doesn't go so far as to call the results "surprising," its author, ABC's Martha Raddatz does say that "the military is generally a more conservative group." Really? May we see some proof of this, rather than just repeating GOP talking points? To ABC's credit, they're doing a story showing that the troops like the Dems, but still, some facts to back up the assertion that the troops tend to be Republicans would be nice, and relevant.
Combining foreign policy analysis with Kelly Clarkson analysis is, let's be honest, basically catnip for me. There's no way I'm not linking to it, but it certainly helps that Spencer Ackerman's analysis of the resignation of CENTCOM head Adm. William Fallon is right on. Spencer explains,
Gates said in a press conference just now that no one should think the move reflects any substantive change in policy. That sure won’t be how Teheran sees it. The Iranians will consider Fallon’s resignation to indicate that the bombing begins in the next five minutes.
Fallon was widely believed to be a (lone?) voice of sanity in terms of administration policy regarding Iran. It may not be especially bad news, but it's certainly not good.
NOTE FROM JOHN: I think Gates is telling the truth. The policy always was to force a war with Iran, and pushing Fallon out helps to eliminate the greatest risk to that policy. So Gates is technically correct: With Fallon's departure there will be no substantive change in the Bush administration policy of seeking a military conflict with Iran. Feeling reassured?
More proof of how much Republicans love the troops and of how well Republican limited government works. John McCain is a leader on the Senate Armed Service Committee - how did this happen under his watch? Hell, how did the entire fiasco of a war happen under McCain's watch? From CREW:
On February 6th, The New York Times reported that Sioux Manufacturing, which makes the Kevlar for helmets, has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company had shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including helmets used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense, aware of both the problem with Sioux's helmets and the company's efforts to cover it up, awarded another contract to Sioux a mere 12 days before the lawsuit was settled. That same day, CREW sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees requesting an investigation into a Department of Defense $74 million contract awarded to Sioux Manufacturing.
[American troops in Afghanistan] felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”
How many more stories do we need about our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq being ignored by George Bush and his buddy on the Armed Services Committee, John McCain?
Heroes don't leave our soldiers "scrounging for everything." Heroes don't let hundreds of Marines be killed and injured because no one in the government wanted to the give them the armor they begged for. Heroes don't let the VA abuse our injured troops under his watch. John McCain may have been a hero 40 years ago in Vietnam. But over the past 6 years he oversaw the wholesale abandonment of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq simply because he didn't want to embarrass George Bush by doing anything to shed light on the problem in his oversight role. When our troops needed him most, John McCain played politics. The man is no hero.
Joe wrote earlier today about how Senator John Warner and the Pentagon are trying to Swift Boat Obama by claiming that the American soldier in Afghanistan, who complained about insufficient support from the Pentagon, doesn't even exist. Only problem? NBC and ABC have interviewed the guy. But don't let facts get in the way of the Pentagon's and John Warner's efforts to put another Republican in the White House. Here is what a Pentagon spokesman said about this:
NBC quoted Bush appointee/Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman:
"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
"Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful," he said.
Properly trained, equipped and with the leadership they need? Huh? On leadership, they had George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld - how did that work out for you? On equipment, we found out just this week that hundreds of Marines are dead and wounded because the Pentagon didn't give them the armor they needed. Hell of a lot of nerve to make this claim the same week the Pentagon's own study blames them for killing our own Marines.
And finally, there's John Warner. You remember him, the guy heading up the Senate Armed Service Committee, doing no oversight whatsoever, while the Pentagon was killing our Marines, and refusing to give our injured troops the medical attention they needed at places like Walter Reed. John Warner's negligence killed our troops and harmed our injured. He is the last person who should be talking about whether our troops are getting what they need.
The media needs to stop playing Republican-suck-up. This story has now been disproven. It's time to do an analysis on why the Pentagon is lying in order to influence the elections, and how John Warner is the last person who should be trusted when it comes to the safety of our troops.
Okay, more evidence of just how far reaching and aggressive the right wing smear machine is. Again, we have to know how this is going to operate this year if we are going to fight it. And, again, this relates to something Barack Obama said at the debate Thursday night:
You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment.
As I wrote yesterday, ABC's Jake Tapper talked to the Army captain in question and verified it was true.
Tapper cited ten right wing blogs that were attacking Obama on this issue. But, it's worse. Two pillars of the Republican defense establishment, the Pentagon and Senator John Warner, also weighed in.
NBC, also spoke to the soldier, but gave the McCain campaign the headline it wanted "Pentagon questions Obama’s soldier story." NBC quoted Bush appointee/Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman:
"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
"Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful," he said.
Okay, that is so not true. But what else would you expect. Whitman's been flacking at the Pentagon since the Rumsfeld days. Think of all the misinformation and lies he spewed at us.
Also, today's Washington Post reports that Senator John Warner dashed off a "stern letter" to Obama challenging his assertions:
Warner -- a World War II veteran and former Navy Secretary -- has been a staunch advocate for U.S. troops. Warner's letter to Obama asks the senator to provide "essential facts" about the Army captain's story, including his personal information, so members of the committee can interview him and others to establish accountability, "depending of course, on the accuracy of the facts."
It's almost amazing how quickly the Republican machine will respond to a perceived attack on their strengths. This was clearly a concerted effort to beat back a very damaging story. What Obama said on Thursday night shines another spotlight on the failures of the Bush/Cheney/McCain record. The Republicans respond very quickly when politics are involved. It's disturbing they don't respond as quickly when soldiers' lives are on the line.
Now, we have two networks that have verified Obama's account. The right wing machine was wrong again. Not just the blogs, but the Pentagon and the "esteemed" John Warner. That should tell the media something. Don't just regurgitate the right wing spin -- and that includes the Pentagon. Verify first because none of them can be believed.
Andrew Tilghman, fast becoming my favorite long-form journalist, has another fantastic, must-read piece in the Washington Monthly. It focuses on why the military's "best and brightest young officers" are leaving at an alarming rate (and yes, Iraq is part of it, but not the only part), and what the implications are of this exodus. Tilghman is a former reporter for the (independent) military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" and has a real feel for the community and the issues he covers. Within military and intel circles, the screwing over of some great people in the military has been a hot topic lately, and the article does a great job of explaining much of the situation. To wit:
Of course, every generation of young officers is critical of their superiors. But the botched management in Iraq and a sense of squandered momentum in Afghanistan have intensified those feelings among today's young officers. It's one thing for young officers in the 1980s or '90s to stand around at a training facility at Fort Polk, Louisiana, complaining about the higher-ups; it's another when junior officers have to see soldiers under their command dying in missions they believe are strategically flawed or futile.
There is a similar problem in the intelligence community, albeit one affected much less by the strains particular to the uniformed services. On one hand, the pressures aren't as bad for intel professionals (especially regarding deployments, obviously); on the other hand, it's much easier for civilians to leave, *especially* with security clearances being so lucrative in the private sector, so the departure rate may even be worse. Either way, this administration is crippling this nation's ability to defend itself in the long term. Crippling.
US military says an operation kills 49 militants with no civilian casualties.
Iraqi sources say the operation resulted in 15 dead, all civilians, including three children (plus over 50 civilians wounded).
How to reconcile the two? There's no way to, really, except to look at the circumstances of the raid. The New York Times article says Iraqis claimed that fire came from a helicopter (or helicopters), which seems like a detail that wouldn't likely be invented out of thin air. Assuming that a helicopter was involved -- there's no indication one way or the other from the military in the story -- it's absolutely impossible for me to believe that no civilians were hit. Airpower is an extremely blunt weapon -- even the most precise bombs create a big explosion (duh), and gunfire is far more indiscriminate. Also, it's been widely reported that many Iraqis sleep on the roofs of buildings to get relief from the heat (and lack of electricity), so I have no problem believing that (again, Iraqi-reported) account.
So you have a helicopter spraying fire into a crowded slum, from the air, at dawn, when people are sleeping on the roof. And we're supposed to believe there were no civilian casualties? Seriously?
Now it may be fair to say that the US position ("The U.S. military said it was not aware of any civilian casualties") is not technically inaccurate -- it's not like our forces go door to door after every engagement to figure out who died. Maybe -- and I'm skeptical, but bear with me -- not a single US soldier saw any civilian get hit. But even if that's the case, that we can't tell who got hit and who didn't . . . how the hell do we come up with an "estimate" of 49 dead "militants"?
Airpower as a counterinsurgency tactic is horrendous. Misleading the public about operations is horrendous. Body counts are horrendous. And the fundamental breach of trust between citizenry and government, created and perpetuated by this administration, will have profound effects for years to come.
A little over a year ago, I started working for a small, upstart group called the National Security Network. I was wary of think tanks for a variety of reasons, but I thought the organization had great potential. NSN had a founder, Rand Beers, who was an actual expert on terrorism and who got the Iraq war right, and policy and communications leadership with talent, aggressiveness, and good political instincts.
Still, I felt like my blog life and establishment life were starkly separate. There wasn't a ton of communication between those worlds, key people didn't know each other, and there was some mistrust.
Today, however, thanks to tons of hard work and the occasional leap of faith, there is unbelievable cooperation and stellar results. Iraq -- and especially the escalation of troops -- has brought together activists, wonks, bloggers, and establishment types to work for a sane foreign policy. It's a privilege to be part of so many valuable parts of this effort, especially when the quality is at the level of NSN's latest, a video of *actual* experts explaining exactly why the Petraeus White House September "report" on Iraq is completely and utterly bogus:
Richard Clarke's comment is especially worth repeating: "What it's going to say is, if we keep troops in a given area, a lot of troops in a small area, we can achieve security in that area. Well, duh, of course we can! The United States military, which is costing us a half a trillion dollars, ought to be able to do that. That's not the issue: the issue is, why the hell are we there in the first place?"
The Republicans have quite literally destroyed the US Army. What if we're attacked again? And what if it's something unexpected - like North Korea, China, or who knows? We are no longer prepared to fight and win a war because the Republicans have broken the US Army. Imagine had Bill Clinton done this during such dangerous times? The Republicans not only show a supreme disrespect for our troops, they show a supreme disrespect for all of our lives.
Mission accomplished. Support our troops. The surge is working. Those slogans ring hollow over and over -- and now this.
Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.
The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War.
...Last year, "Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said.
...Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
"In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.
Oh boy. Again, just when you think Bush's war in Iraq can't do anymore damage, it can. Bush's war czar, General Lute, told NPR that the U.S. should consider a draft because of the stress the war has put on our military. Yeah, the draft is "on the table":
Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.
President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.
The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.
"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all- volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."
Just because Bush says publicly the draft isn't necessary doesn't mean anything. Bush lies.
National Journal reports, via Marc Ambinder, that Mark Lippert, Obama's principal foreign policy advisor and member of the Naval Reserves, has been called up for active duty. According to the report, he does not know where or how long he’ll deploy, but he's currently training (and Denis McDonough, a former Daschle advisor, will apparently increase his profile within the campaign in Mark's absence).
Yet another Democrat proving -- and not just talking about -- national security seriousness. Also worth noting that Mark signed up for the Reserves three years ago, right in the midst of two ongoing wars.
From a policy perspective, it's definitely a loss for Obama; virtually everyone I know in the foreign policy world has nothing but good things to say about Lippert, who is apparently extraordinarily bright and well-versed in a variety of subjects. Further, whereas some of the other candidates have a group of foreign policy confidants, Lippert apparently had singular influence, reportedly having earned the trust and faith of Obama.
Here's hoping he has a successful deployment, wherever it may lead.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about business or government, this issue won't go away. While I understand that it's not an easy issue and every other company and consultant out there has a different spin on what works best but these regular stories are ridiculously common and yet there is never any action. Of course it's an expensive problem to fix but the costs of foot dragging and providing such easy access for secret or private data comes with a cost as well. In the case of the military they are offering easy access to military secrets and in business, easy access for criminals who are abusing both individuals as well as the commerce system.
In a survey of servers run by agencies or companies involved with the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, The Associated Press found dozens of documents that officials refused to release when asked directly, citing troop security.
Such material goes online all the time, posted most often by mistake. It's not in plain sight, unlike the plans for the new American embassy in Baghdad that appeared recently on the Web site of an architectural firm. But it is almost as easy to find.
And experts said foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists working with al-Qaida likely know where to look.
As long as there is more incentive to do nothing instead of taking action, expect more problems. They're likely to be much more costly over time, but that looks like what we are going to get. It also shows just how little the Bush administration cares about real security since these problems have been ongoing for some time.
The war based on a lie, whose progress updates are a lie, run by a bunch of liars, now has one more lie to add to the mix: The flags on our troops' uniforms say "Made in USA," but they're really "Made in Thailand." I'm sure the White House will simply hail this as Thailand's contribution to the ever-shrinking Coalition of the Willing.
I got a chance to interview Antonio this morning at the Take Back America conference here in DC. He was appearing at a press conference launching a new video short by Robert Greenwald about the military's gan ban having fired dozens of Arabic-speaking linguists because they're gay. Antonio wasn't a linguist, but he was in charge of finding and destroying IEDs in Iraq - another crucial job. He left after becoming fed up with the anti-gay policy. Below is my interview with him (I mistakenly captioned him as "Anthony," sorry).
Treating our troops as expendable political props, because you're too afraid to admit you made a huge mistake, doesn't honor them - it gets them killed.
