Dying to Preserve the Lies

Orders to deploy to Afghanistan - third combat deployment

2009-09-02T13:44:00.004-07:00

Son-in-law already has his orders for deployment to Afghanistan. He is home with his family for now - his year 'dwell time' at home. We work to try to forget it is only a year that will pass quickly and another deployment looms ahead. My daughter works (and I do mean Works) at trying to get the most out of their time home, arranging for the family to get everything they can out of each moment; something to be stored up against the times he is away.

A third deployment after two extended, stop-loss 15 month deployments in Iraq. Amounts to 30 months on the ground in Iraq + the months before and after deployments of readying or debriefing and he has been gone about 40 months of his children's lives. Strong as my daughter is in trying to keep her family stabilized, I am seeing the toll these deployments are putting on the families. There is no way that my grandchildren will not carry some imprint of fear into their adult lives. Military brats, kids who grow up with parent(s) in military are resilient and develop unique coping skills that can serve them well in their adult years, ie, taking responsibility, organizational and communication skills, embracing different cultures, but as is well identified in the movie (dvd available) Brats; Our Journey Home, children are impacted by the life during times of peace, and more so during times of war.

Is it too early for me to be thinking about joining the protests of the Afghanistan war? Possibly, but I don't think it's going to be marching in the streets that will get the message out there this time. Not sure yet, what direction registering statements of concern about the direction of Afghanistan war will need to take or wind up taking, but a beginning is discourse and dialogue, talking about the course of this war. Wearied from years of intense activity in being part of actions to elevate the concerns about Iraq war, I'm not anxious to jump into the fray to do likewise with Afghanistan war......and yet, neither do I want my son-in-law and his family to have to go through another combat deployment.

I do empathize with President Obama in having so many fires to put out as soon as he stepped into office, and unlike former President Bush, I don't think we are dealing with a President in Obama who is beyond listening to reason. Afghanistan is another fire that needs to be put out, it won't wait patiently in line whilst all the other issues demanding President Obama's attention get priority attention. I'm going to need to hear Obama's reasoning for why our troops need to remain in Afghanistan; why my son-in-law needs to put his life on the line once more --- for what purpose, for what larger issue, for what greater good?

Military Families Respond to Survey – Feel Disconnected

2009-05-06T08:56:00.001-07:00

Military families feel disconnected from the larger community, according to a poll commissioned by a military family advocacy group.

According to the results of the poll, 94 percent feel that way. Blue Star Families released the results of the 3,000-person survey at a roundtable on Capitol Hill led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The roundtable -- meant as one way to bridge the gap -- included Blue Star Families, the National Military Families Association, Tina Tchen of the White House Council on Women and Girls, as well as several members of Congress.

Veterans expressions of pain are not necessarily a political expression of anti-war, pro-war or neutral…

2009-04-29T07:35:00.001-07:00

Thoughts expressed by this Marine Captain on the matter of veterans healing from their war experiences articulates much better than I some of the thoughts I have tried to express…

I have taken exception to the activism among some of the anti-war groups that are too quick to usurp the veterans' expression of pain as an extension and endorsement of the group's own dissent message.

citing excerpt from the article;

The crucial mistake being made, I think, by so many in the pro-war, antiwar and apolitical populations alike, is their assumptions that the outbursts of veterans are necessarily whole-hearted expressions of dissent. More likely, they are expressions of pain.

The Primacy of Healing: Politics and Combat Stress in America
By Tyler E. Boudreau | Truthout

I am a veteran of the war in Iraq. Like many, I came home bearing an unexpected skepticism toward our operations there and a fresh perspective on America's use of military power. And also like many, I found myself emotionally and psychologically harried by my experiences on the battlefield. But unlike many, I landed after discharge in a community where criticism for the war was both socially acceptable and, in fact, quite common, leaving me free to process a distress which was directly connected to US foreign policy. I was, literally and figuratively, right at home. So, I couldn't help noticing how the political dissent of my community was facilitating my mental healing. That has given me reason to consider all the ways in which politics has corresponded with and influenced the understanding and acceptance of combat stress. And while combat stress survivors have, in some ways, benefited from this relationship; they have suffered from it as well.

Combat stress has a stigmatic heritage, well-recognized now, but that was not always so. World War I was an era in which distraught soldiers were often labeled "men of deficient character"; and yet, the unspeakable carnage of its battles seemed to have offered latitude enough in the aftermath for the painful expressions of its veterans. But after the infinitely more popular World War II, veterans became known more for reticence than effusion and for a stoical veneer beneath which (we know now) a growing tumult was quietly raging. With the country so steeped in enthusiasm, it is not surprising that their invisible wounds went largely unnoticed. After all, with whom, in such a climate, might a veteran have shared his horrible stories?

Vietnam marked a new era for politics and for combat stress. The antiwar movement was never so vociferous, the veterans never so outspoken. And the term "Post-Traumatic Stress" was virtually nonexistent; it was not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until 1980. Widespread criticism of the conflict changed all that. The antiwar movement did not merely give veterans room to recover; it created space in the American consciousness for the possibility that the experiences from war could, in fact, be psychologically devastating. This consequently opened the door to the study of combat stress. Today, after six years in Iraq (eight in Afghanistan), combat stress is nearly taken for granted as an innate component of war. And yet the stigma survives throughout the country, in the military, and even in the mental health field. Why?

The trouble with combat stress (and the traumatic accounts that go with it) is its tendency to call into question the morality of military action. Regardless of the policies, the objectives, or the administrations that enact them, war's essence is challenged outright by the mere existence of combat stress. Upon witnessing the sundered consciousnesses of so many returning veterans and hearing about all the horrible things they endured and committed, one finds it difficult not to conclude that the battlefield must truly be a horrible place. Of course, the justness of war is not defined by its casualties alone, but when the moral compasses of young soldiers are spun to the point where they find it difficult to bear their own skins (as we've seen expressed in the record suicides of late), it leads to a natural suspicion about the moral direction of the war overall. And that is precisely the problem. Like it or not, combat stress is, in its own way, a political statement. It is a silent judgment of war (and of society), and that is why the understanding and treatment of it remain perpetually stifled.

For instance, there has been recent discussion within the psychiatric community about reducing the criteria for post-traumatic stress in the pending DSM-V or restricting the types of events that might be deemed traumatic. The "disorder," some psychiatrists feel, has become too broadly defined, which has contributed to imprecise data collection. Their claim, in other words, is that too many people have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. This must be the only epidemic in human history whose remedy is simply to eliminate the symptoms by which one is diagnosed, thereby normalizing the condition itself, which, in this case, is the psychological effects of war.

This is reminiscent, I think, of Freud's famous study of "hysteria," in which he concluded that the young women suffering from the said illness had been traumatized by sexual abuse. But in noticing the massive number of hysteria cases throughout society, he suddenly realized the dark implications of his findings. The epidemic was rape, not hysteria. That was apparently too much to bear for Freud or for society. Shortly after publishing his conclusions, he recanted them all and drummed up a new theory: These women - the patients with whom he'd worked passionately for over a decade - were just plain crazy. The renowned doctor turned his back on his patients and on the truth, the hysteria was normalized, and the abuse carried on. Combat stress appears to be heading in rather the same direction.

The link between politics and combat stress is hardly subtle; it is intuitive. Articulated or not, people sense it. For example, across the country there have cropped up literally hundreds of grass roots organizations and projects formed to reintegrate veterans and help them through the process of coming home. And in nearly every one of them, you will find some disclaimer or note of vigorous neutrality. "This is about veterans, not politics!" they practically chant. The very presence of this message reiterated ad nauseam is enough to let anyone hearing it know that this absolutely is about politics and that politics are inextricably bound to healing. These attempts at nonpartisan reintegration are fashionable - even admirable - but sadly destined to fail on a large scale because communalizing healing is not possible without first communalizing war. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything but communalized.

All the while that this effort to segregate the veterans from their wars goes on, the very same veterans will be searching for meaning behind their war experiences, and they will inevitably reach politics because, as Karl Von Clausewitz notoriously points out, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Whatever conclusions veterans arrive at in the aftermath, one can be sure they will be politically charged. To deny the ruminations of veterans on the grounds of "nonpartisanship" is, for one thing, to ignore the old adage that silence is consent; and for another, it is to prohibit those veterans from processing a major element of their torment. On the other hand, to embrace their political outbursts too fervently or to focus too narrowly on the partisan weight of their every word is to lose sight of the central process underway. That is what is happening now across the country.

The insidious reluctance towards combat stress that one almost expects to find in the military has plagued the home front as well. In communities, which have adamantly supported the war in Iraq, returning veterans have found their ability to express pain often inhibited or even forcefully suppressed because it tends to sound too much like criticism. Those whose distress results from the danger they experienced or the death they narrowly escaped find at least some level of acceptance. But for those whose angst comes specifically from their deeds in war - from the violence they inflicted or from the deaths they caused - those veterans face a much stiffer resistance.

Members of my former unit hailing from various parts of the country have found themselves practically gagged by the pro-war culture of their own hometowns, leaving them no with way to process their pain and no way to heal. So strong is the intolerance for dissent, which their traumatic memories seem to represent, they are forced to process their pain through drinking, drugs, violence and a host of other illegal or self-destructive activities. These veterans come to understand one immutable truth: It is better to break the law than break the faith. If they turn reckless or criminal, they might do some jail time, but if they turn their backs on the war and on the troops, their former comrades, they will certainly face ostracism from their communities. And that is a far harsher penalty for anyone, let alone an unhinged combat veteran. Such patterns of emotional oppression must seem rather obvious to members of the antiwar community, who generally take the phrases "recovering from war" and "opposing war" to mean the same thing. In many ways, the two terms can be, and indeed are, synonymous, although not inherently so. The distinction may be slight, but I have found a great deal of misunderstanding can gather between them. Traumatic healing is not the same thing as political activism. They are driven by different forces, and so must be treated differently. This is a lesson that goes missed all too often.

When I first came home, I got involved with some activism, and I remember a friend said to me, "Be careful." I asked him what he meant and he told me the story of another outspoken veteran who'd been invited to an antiwar rally. "He was talking about his time in war. He was screaming. His eyeballs were red. He was foaming at the mouth. Everybody loved it. They hooted, and hollered, and called out his name. And when he was done telling his story, they just let him go home - by himself - and stew in all those juices." My friend shook his head disapprovingly and said to me, "Remember, the antiwar crowd cares about one thing - antiwar, not veterans." That may not have been an entirely accurate or fair assessment of the entire movement, but since coming home and having participated in a few rallies myself I've seen enough of the overzealous encouragement and standing ovations to confirm my friend's suspicion. On the other hand, having gotten to know so many of the people at those rallies, I suspect now that their oversight was usually not from being callous or manipulative, but from misunderstanding the nature of combat stress and the way it tends to surface itself.

The crucial mistake being made, I think, by so many in the pro-war, antiwar and apolitical populations alike, is their assumptions that the outbursts of veterans are necessarily whole-hearted expressions of dissent. More likely, they are expressions of pain. It just so happens that their context is political and therefore their vocabulary is political as well. And while these expressions may be more affirming to the Left than to the Right, they are, for neither side, exclusively political statements. I don't mean to invalidate the thoughtful contributions of veterans returning from war, including my own, just to point out that there is more going on in the consciousness of a combat veteran than politics.

The search, I would say, is foremost for some level of serenity. Any new ideology picked up along the way is a by-product of the process itself, and one which does not always endure. That's important to remember. Veterans' experiences in war are extreme; their emotions are extreme; so their views will often come out extreme as well, initially at least. But their political destinations remain uncharted because until their pain has receded their maps are incompletely drawn. For my part, I was reading a lot of radical texts when I came home from war and quoting a lot of radical thinkers. That's fine, I think, because radical politics is absolutely one of the products of war. It was an exercise of regurgitation, which had the cathartic benefit of purging a lot of my rage. But I wasn't doing any real thinking of my own. When I finally calmed down enough to contemplate the situation for myself, I found a place that was not exactly where I'd started out and not exactly where those of either political party might have liked to see me, but it was far more satisfying to me because it was a place of my choosing.

The antiwar community has done well in providing receptiveness and acceptance for veterans expressing negative reactions to war and to the politics which drove them there. What they could do better is to not take those expressions too much at their face. (The pro-war and "neutral" communities could probably stand to consider this point, too.) For returning veterans, the healing process is the central activity on-going, not politics. They need time and room to speak their peace; they need the freedom to lash out verbally so they don't feel cornered into finding other, more destructive outlets. At some point most of them will emerge from the inner fray and be able to define more soberly their political disposition and place themselves in communities accordingly. Until then, compassion is required from all - compassion, which includes both tolerance and restraint, both letting politics in and simultaneously keeping it out, and having both the courage to acknowledge the intrinsic presence of politics in combat stress and the wisdom to recognize the primacy of healing.

###

Tyler Boudreau, a former Marine captain, is the author of "Packing Inferno: The Unmaking of a Marine." His web site is www.tylerboudreau.com.

Shifting Direction for Dying to Preserve the Lies blog

2009-04-09T08:57:00.007-07:00

Our son-in-law is home now from his second 'stop-loss', 15 month deployment in Iraq. That means he has spent 30 months of his life, his wife's (our daughter) life, and their three children's (our grandchildren) lives .... away from them. Add to that the downfield trainings in preparation for deployments and debriefing from deployments and he has been away 40 months of their lives.

Daughter and children have done an outstanding job of making the sacrifice without complaint, but I have seen the hard edges the toll has taken on them. The two younger children were 1 and 3 years old when he left for the first deployment to Iraq, and now they are 7 and 9 years old. For 40 months of their young formative years, he has been away and in danger, a danger which they are aware of and it has created for them an anxiety they can not well articulate except through fear and anxious-driven behaviors. I applaud their mother and her teen age daughter who have worked in harmony in managing the younger children through these anxious years.

My time of putting energy into activism towards ending the Iraq war and getting the troops home winds down with President Obama's declaration of ending Iraq war and drawing down troops - responsibly. Drawing down and withdrawing our military is a process that is done with an eye to reducing risks to remaining troops and takes time and I have no disagreement with that process. Recognizing that President Obama plans to put more troops into Afghanistan and that war front may escalate, I am disappointed with that plan. And after a 'dwell time' period at home with his wife and children, likely our son-in-law can figure he will have a deployment to Afghanistan - he has said as much.

But -- after six years of war in Iraq, eight years of war in Afghanistan, with the unmet needs of the service men and women coming home to their military families, and the unmet needs of military families who have sacrificed much for too long ...I want my energies to be directed in venues that will help put in place some of the much-needed resources for this generation of veterans and their families. I'm thinking that I want to shift the direction of this blog towards being a part of the bridge building that facilitates calling attention to needed resources, but I am also thinking that the name of the blog is perhaps too provocative - as I meant it to be when I created this blog. Perhaps it is time to retire this blog and begin anew with another blog.

I would like to give a shout out for a military family group that has already made contributions in representing some of the concerns expressed by this generation of military families. Many members are currently military spouses, and I think that gives their thoughts weight as among the representative voices of this generation's military families. See Blue Star Families.... their mission statement;

"Blue Star Families is a bridge between military families, the shapers of policy affecting military life, and our nation at large. Through outreach to our government leaders and local civilian communities, we strive to share the unique experiences of our military lifestyle and the pride we feel in our families’ service. By engaging our members and their families, we seek to gather our perspectives and opinions on all aspects of military life. We use this knowledge base as a voice of military families to inform the policy shapers and to support families, like ours, that have the honor of serving our country."

And see their blog Blue Star Voices.

Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran, guest on MSNBC discusses military suicides

2009-02-10T10:31:00.007-08:00

video - Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org appears twice on MSNBC to discuss a new report on the alarming rate of suicides in the U.S. Army

Suicides, electrical shocks, deficient body armor plague U.S. troops

2009-01-29T08:46:00.001-08:00

GI Suicides in 2008 Highest on Record

The Army is expected to release a report later today revealing the highest number of suicides among troops in nearly three decades, according to CNN.

The network reported this morning that the Army will confirm 128 suicides in 2008, along with 15 suspected suicides currently under investigation among active-duty Soldiers and activated National Guard and Army Reserve troops. The Army also will announce a study of Soldier suicides and links to post-combat stress, CNN says.

read more at Military.com

Army Report Notes 231 Shock Incidents

U.S. troops in Iraq suffered electrical shocks about every three days in a two-year period surrounding the electrocution death of a Green Beret sergeant, according to an internal Defense Contract Management Agency report obtained by the Tribune-Review.

The 45-page document -- a high-level request for corrective action generated last fall -- found that Texas-based military contractor KBR Inc. failed to properly ground and bond its electrical systems, which contributed to Soldiers "receiving shocks in KBR-maintained facilities on average once every three days since data was available in Sept. 2006."

The agency determined that KBR "failed to meet basic requirements to identify life-threatening conditions on tanks, water pumps, electrical outlets and electrical panels."

The report adds that government search results of a KBR-maintained database revealed that 231 electrical-shock incidents occurred in the period from September 2006 through July 31, 2008 -- indicating that the activity continued long after the death of Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, who suffered cardiac arrest after stepping into his Baghdad shower on Jan. 2, 2008.

Records show Maseth was electrocuted when he turned on the water that flowed through metal pipes. The Army Criminal Investigation Division recently determined Maseth's death was negligent homicide, rather than an accident as previously reported.

read more at Military.com

Body Armor Recalled by Army

WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Pete Geren has ordered the recall of more than 16,000 sets of body armor following an audit that concluded the bullet-blocking plates in the vests failed testing and may not provide Soldiers with adequate protection.

The audit by the office of the Defense Department inspector general, not yet made public but obtained by The Associated Press, faults the Army for flawed testing procedures before awarding a contract for the armor.

In a letter dated Jan. 27 to Acting Inspector General Gordon Heddell, Geren said he did not agree that the plates failed the testing or that Soldiers were issued deficient gear. He said his opinion was backed by the Pentagon’s top testing director.

Despite his insistence that the armor was not deficient, Geren said he was recalling the sets as a precaution.

Geren also said he's asked for a senior Pentagon official to resolve the disagreement between the Army and the inspector general's office.

read more at Military.com

‘America’s Defense Meltdown’

2008-12-12T11:08:00.001-08:00

Check it out. I am saving to read later when I have more time; you might want to take a look and read it - very up to the minute.

at CDI - Center for Defense Information; newly released to and for President-Elect Barack Obama’s consideration.

"America's Defense Meltdown"? (pdf)

What’s in "America's Defense Meltdown" is a new anthology that gives President-elect Obama and Congress direction and will guide the United States back onto the path of an effective defense at a cost a nation in recession can afford.
Author(s): Winslow Wheeler

I haven't watched this video yet either at GRIT TV with Laura Flanders website - it is where I found the info.

My ‘morning reads’ are disturbing this morning

2008-12-12T11:01:00.001-08:00

Michael Ware, CNN Correspondent, six years in Iraq. At HuffPo the title is 'Michael Ware's Tortured World; I Am Not the Same F---g Person'...which links to the original article at Men's Journal titled ‘CNN's Prisoner of War'.

Michael Ware speaks to what he has witnessed and experienced. He speaks to dehumanizing aspect of war, the war in Iraq in truth being now the war in Iran and was since beginning when U.S. troops crossed the Kuwait border, he speaks of how Obama can bring the troops home and it may be at the expense of mortgaging our foreign policy in the Middle East.

Read it for yourselves; a few of excerpts;

"It's my firm belief that we need to constantly jar the sensitivities of the people back home," he says. "War is a jarring experience. Your kids are living it out, and you've inflicted it upon 20-odd million Iraqis. And when your brothers and sons and mates from the football team come home, and they ain't quite the same, you have an obligation to sit for three and a half minutes and share something of what it's like to be there."

It's an obligation now owed to Michael Ware, too.

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

This freedom has helped Ware stay a year in front of conventional wisdom. In 2003, while others were covering the conquest of Baghdad, he talked with Iraqi policemen and soldiers, the men who would become the insurgency. Then in 2004, when Donald Rumsfeld was dismissing these insurgents as "dead-enders," Ware was reporting on their strength after seeing their training camps firsthand. Two years later, Ware was branding the conflict in Iraq a civil war while the Bush administration boasted about the results of Iraq's democratic elections. This year his obsession has been the extent of Iran's influence over the Iraqi government.

"From the moment the first American tanks crossed the Kuwait border, America was in a proxy war with Iran," Ware says. "The Iranians knew it, but it took the U.S. four years to figure it out. Now the Iraqi government is comprised almost entirely of factions created in Iran, supported by Iran, or with ties to the Iranian government — as many as 23 members of the Iraqi parliament are former members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard."

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

As uncomfortable as he is with the idea of his leaving Iraq, if Ware were setting policy, American forces would be in Iraq for a very, very long time. He shudders at the idea of massive American troop withdrawals. Horrific genocide, he predicts; worse than Bosnia. "John McCain said, 'The war's going so well, so why stop now?' I say it's going so badly that we have to pay the price to prevent what's to come."

"The successes in bringing down the violence are undeniable, yet America hasn't been looking at the price to deliver these successes. Obama can bring American kids home tomorrow, but are you willing to mortgage your foreign policy future in that region? Are you willing to walk away from a stronger Iran that is gaining leverage to be a nuclear power? Are you willing to accept your diminished influence in the Middle East? As long as the American public is willing to ante up, then you can bring them home."

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

"Then, for the next 20 minutes," Ware remembers, "all of us just stood around and watched this guy's life slowly ebb away in painful, heaving sobs for air, rendering him absolutely no assistance or aid. If that had been an American soldier, he would have been medevacked out and in 20 minutes would've landed on an operating table. Once an enemy combatant comes into your custody, you're obliged by the Geneva Conventions to render that wounded prisoner all aid. Even I — with my rudimentary medical training, I don't think his life could've been saved — but even I could've eased his passing.
"Instead a towel was laid over his face, making his breathing much more labored and painful, the taunts continued, and we just sat around and watched him die.

"And for some bizarre reason, it was just me and this platoon of soldiers, and I was able to see the dispassion of these kids in the way they just watched his life slip away. I was filming and worrying about the best composition of the shot, and I realized that I too was watching just as dispassionately. There's no blame to be laid here. That guy was a legitimate target who was rightfully shot in the head. But it made me realize, just once more, that this kind of dehumanization is what happens when we send our children to war."

First Lady (to be) Michelle Obama phoned me at my home!!

2008-11-12T10:04:00.002-08:00

She really did. She phoned on Veterans Day. I was sitting at my desk in my home in my lounge around the house clothes, working on my laptop. The dawning of the fullness of the recognition that I was on the phone listening to Michelle Obama, who will very soon be the First Lady hit me like a ton of bricks and blew me away. Wow, I'm on a phone call with the First Lady -- how cool is that!

Actually, it was a conference call, listen only, that Michelle Obama made on Veterans Day to Blue Star Families 4 Obama, to thank them for their pro-active help in the campaign, to thank them for their sacrifices as military families. We are a Blue Star family and I had joined the BSF4O group during the campaign at my mybarackobama campaign site.

So no, it was not a personal call specifically to me, and I was having a little fun with the first part of this post. Still, I was surprised at my own reaction and recognition -- this really is Michelle Obama, she really will be the First Lady, she is talking to us on a phone conference call, talking about her daughters, getting them into schools, getting ready for the inauguration. It had a surreal feeling to it for me. I am not used to being on a phone call from the First Lady and well, the Vice President -- an earlier conference call I got to participate in (listen only) with Joe Biden.

If I were to be on a phone conference call with President Elect, Barack Obama, based on my reaction to Michelle Obama's phone conference call, I'm sure my reaction will cause my heart to beat faster.

Towards the end of the campaign, I was on a listen only conference call from Joe Biden that he set up via his email listserv. He had just concluded his speech in Tacoma, WA, thanked us and was encouraging the many of us on the conference call to get out there and keep working, and not to take anything for granted.

The audacity of hope..boy, am I feeling it!

One photo embraces Veteran’s Day

2008-11-12T08:43:00.001-08:00

Returning wounded Iraq veteran, and now Director of the Illinois Dept of Veteran’s Affairs, Tammy Duckworth who lost both legs in combat in Iraq war with President Elect, Barack Obama on Veteran’s Day 2008; ceremony of placing the wreath on Bronze Soldiers Memorial.

link - more photos and article

‘Crawford’ – dvd feature film, when George W. Bush came to town

2008-11-10T11:45:00.001-08:00

Released in 2008, the film ‘Crawford’ produced/directed by David Modigliani is a documentary/biography of the small town of Crawford, Texas before George W. Bush arrived at their doorstep, during the time of his Presidency. (And now after as new President-Elect, Barack Obama, is preparing to assume the office of President of the United States). The film,’Crawford’ is put together in a way that shows the residents of the town, their lives, and the impact of what happens to the town and their lives when George Bush moves to their town to set up his ranch in his campaign for President.

The video is embedded below, obtaining it from and assuming that Hulu has necessary permissions to share it online. If the video does not work at my blog, you can view it where I did, online at his link – Hulu.

I jump ahead of the film, to my own personal experience of Crawford, Texas. Of course, part of the Crawford experience is that month of August 2005, when Cindy Sheehan parked herself in Crawford outside the President’s ranch during his vacation. For perspective as to why Cindy decided to make her stand at that time, remember that President Bush took vacation shortly after one of his press conferences in which he identifies the deaths of troops in Iraq as having given their lives for a noble cause.

Remember that at that time, 23 marines from the Lima Company alone had been killed in Iraq in 2005, 20 were killed over 2 days in August 2005 – six on Aug 1, and fourteen on Aug 3. Cindy, mother of Casey Sheehan, soldier, who was killed in Iraq April 4, 2004, deliberately went to Crawford almost immediately after the noble cause statement to ask George Bush personally ‘What Noble Cause?’ . While the film does not elevate this period of the George Bush ranch in Crawford experience,the film attempts to show the impact on local residents.

I was part of that story, part of that August 2005 experience of Crawford. Since I was not or did not consider myself to be a ‘peace activist’ prior to the Iraq war but chose to present as a military family trying to speak out to a new young generation of military families, the perspectives I have of my own experiences among the peace/activism communities has it’s own unique flavor. My experience of Crawford, Texas, Camp Casey, August 2005 is colored by my experiences growing up as what is affectionately callled a ‘military brat’ on military bases in between the Korean Conflict (war) and the Vietnam war, my experiences as a military wife of a young husband, drafted and deployed to Vietnam, my experiences living in the ‘military culture’, my professional career employment in the social services field during my adult years as a civilian employed in state level public sector, and my inexperience with the culture of peace/activism communities.

The film does justice to one of the many considerations I had when I was at Crawford. How does this tiny town cope with having such high profile people make their mark at Crawford? How does the town deal with and cope with the polarized, political battle of opinions here at home on the Iraq war which I believe came to head at Crawford during Camp Casey in August 2005. Now that I actually do live in a small town, and it is a new part of my life experiences, I wondered how the people in the town where I live would react should something similar happen in their town and lives.

Whatever came after the August 2005, Crawford, Texas, Camp Casey experience, I will always credit Cindy with bringing to head the public discourse which at that time had been embroiled in political limitations to the language of what constitutes patriotism, the flag, and support for the troops. The public political discourse needed to happen and the shift in the political discourse because of that month of August 2005 in Crawford that gave voice to the many-faceted feelings and opinions of the war in Iraq needed to happen.

It opened doors within the public Iraq war political discourse that had been previously deliberately slammed shut. And I would offer those doors were slammed shut with deliberate forethought and premeditation so as to confine, undermine, and squelch any opportunity of public dialogue or public dissent. For myself, an ordinary person living an ordinary life, my experience of August 2005 in Crawford, Texas was extraordinary and has marked me indelibly.

But August 2005 is not the point of this film, it is a part of the film, as it is a part of the Crawford experience. The film is presented in a way that does not favor opinions about the Iraq war, about George W. Bush, but brings to bear the experience of both along with other experiences that often times typifies small town America. The ending of the film shook me up – was something I did not know and was very unsettling.

I hope you’ll watch the film. It is not a trailer, but the full length film, 1 hour and 15 minutes, so recommend watching it when you have some time to watch it.

Excerpt of one review of the film ‘Crawford’ by Joe Leydon at Variety

By JOE LEYDON
David Modiglinai's "Crawford" offers an evenhanded and occasionally poignant account of the impact on the citizenry of the small Texas town chosen by President George W. Bush to be the site of his so-called "Western White House." Filmed over several years, docu plays like a rise-and-fall drama populated with colorful, contrasting characters who have profoundly mixed feelings about being used as props in Bush's political stagecraft. After a spin on the fest circuit, pic might get limited theatrical play before pubcast and/or niche-cable airdates.

General Blackledge on Mental Health: Do What I Do ... AND What I Say!

2008-11-08T13:58:00.005-08:00

Via TBO.com Tampa Bay Online

General bucks culture of silence on mental health

WASHINGTON – It takes a brave soldier to do what Army Maj. Gen. David Blackledge did in Iraq.

It takes as much bravery to do what he did when he got home.

Blackledge got psychiatric counseling to deal with wartime trauma, and now he is defying the military's culture of silence on the subject of mental health problems and treatment.

"It's part of our profession ... nobody wants to admit that they've got a weakness in this area," Blackledge said of mental health problems among troops returning from America's two wars.

"I have dealt with it. I'm dealing with it now," said Blackledge, who came home with post-traumatic stress. "We need to be able to talk about it."

As the nation marks Veterans Day on Tuesday, thousands of troops are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with anxiety, depression and other emotional problems.

As many as one-fifth of the more than 1.7 million who have served in the wars are estimated to have symptoms. In a sign of how tough it may be to change attitudes, roughly half of those who need help are not seeking it, studies have found.

Despite efforts to reduce the stigma of getting treatment, officials say they fear generals and other senior leaders remain unwilling to go for help, much less talk about it, partly because they fear it will hurt chances for promotion.

That reluctance is also worrisome because it sends the wrong signal to younger officers and perpetuates the problem leaders are working to reverse.

"Stigma is a challenge," Army Secretary Pete Geren said Friday at a Pentagon news conference on troop health care. "It's a challenge in society in general. It's certainly a challenge in the culture of the Army, where we have a premium on strength, physically, mentally, emotionally."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked leaders this year to set an example for all soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines: "You can't expect a private or a specialist to be willing to seek counseling when his or her captain or colonel or general won't do it."

Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, an Army psychiatrist heading the defense center for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, is developing a campaign in which people will tell their personal stories. Troops, their families and others also will share concerns and ideas through Web links and other programs. Blackledge volunteered to help, and next week he and his wife, Iwona, an Air Force nurse, will speak on the subject at a medical conference.

A two-star Army Reserve general, 54-year-old Blackledge commanded a civil affairs unit on two tours to Iraq, and now works in the Pentagon as Army assistant deputy chief of staff for mobilization and reserve issues.

His convoy was ambushed in February 2004, during his first deployment. In the event that he since has relived in flashbacks and recurring nightmares, Blackledge's interpreter was shot through the head, his vehicle rolled over several times and Blackledge crawled out of it with a crushed vertebrae and broken ribs. He found himself in the middle of a firefight, and he and other survivors took cover in a ditch.

He said he was visited by a psychiatrist within days after arriving at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. He had several sessions with the doctor over his 11 months of recovery and physical therapy for his injuries.

"He really helped me," Blackledge said. And that's his message to troops.

"I tell them that I've learned to deal with it," he said. "It's become part of who I am."

He still has bad dreams about once a week but no longer wakes from them in a sweat, and they are no longer as unsettling.

On his second tour to Iraq, Blackledge traveled to neighboring Jordan to work with local officials on Iraq border issues, and he was in an Amman hotel in November 2005 whensuicide bombers attacked, killing some 60 and wounding hundreds.

Blackledge got a whiplash injury that took months to heal. The experience, including a harrowing escape from the chaotic scene, rekindled his post-traumatic stress symptoms, though they weren't as strong as those he'd suffered after the 2004 ambush.

Officials across the service branches have taken steps over the last year to make getting help easier and more discreet, such as embedding mental health teams into units.

They see signs that stigma has been slowly easing. But it's likely a change that will take generations.

'Body of War' on Veterans Day, Nov 11, 2008 to premier on Sundance channel

2008-11-08T11:27:00.011-08:00

Injured Iraq war veteran, Tomas Young, is the featured centerpiece of this documentary produced by well known talk show host, Phil Donahue, and Ellen Spiro. Songs by Eddy Vedder. The documentary has won National Board of Review award for Best Documentary. The documentary follows 3 years of the life of Tomas Young upon his return from Iraq after being injured. Tomas' spine was severed by a sniper's bullet within a week of arriving in Iraq, leaving him paralyzed for life from the chest down at the tender young age of 25.

Phil Donahue has been passionate in making and promoting this documentary, giving considerable credit to Ellen Spiro for her untiring work on the film.

Quoting Phil Donahue; "Tomas Young is one of thousands of returning veterans forced to adjust to serious changes in their lives in the wake of this war, and it's critical that their stories get out there."

On a more personal level, I have seen the film, and while I did not personally meet Tomas, I am aware of him, spent some time in some of the same locations shown in the documentary. I recognize several of my military family colleagues shown in the film, was there with them at the time of this documentary filming. I feel as if I know Tomas, after all, he and other's like him are why I have committed these past almost six years as a military family speaking out against sending this young generation into an unwarranted war in Iraq.

I can't think of a more appropriate film showing on this Veteran's Day than one that acknowledges all of our returning and not returning Iraq veterans. While Veteran's Day is about all veterans of all engagements, I know the older veterans are honored and humbled to have this young generation of Iraq veterans acknowledged.

'Body of War' to air on Nov 11, 2008, 7 PM on Sundance channel.

See 'Body of War' website for more information, to purchase the dvd, and note that 25% of every purchase goes to Tomas Young.

Trailer

Bill Moyers Journal

Longer version of Bill Moyers Journal featuring Tomas Young speaking engagement at Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York

Obama Victory Ushers in More Confident Tone for Iraq - U.S. Settlement

2008-11-07T08:11:00.001-08:00

Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politics, title of article at NY Times;

BAGHDAD — Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Mr. Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

and this;

Over all, however, there was a new tone of optimism. “The atmosphere is positive with the American attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation,” the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told the news channel Al Arabiya. He praised the inclusion of a new provision stating that Americans would not launch attacks on Iraq’s neighbors from Iraqi soil.

The Americans also added language to make explicit what kinds of troops would remain after the withdrawal in 2011, said a Bush administration official knowledgeable about the security pact. Those still in Iraq would be primarily trainers and air traffic controllers, the official said.

“There’s going to be a significant presence, but they are not going to be ‘combat’ forces,” said the administration official. The official said that the most recent talks with Iraqis had given American negotiators confidence that a final agreement was close.

Mr. Ameri, who is chairman of the security committee of Iraq’s Parliament, said that Iraqi politicians did appreciate the Bush administration’s commitment to Iraq. Signing the agreement while President Bush was still in office would be “a minimum sign of appreciation,” Mr. Ameri said.

Obama: 'New Mission in Iraq: Ending the War'

2008-11-07T07:27:00.001-08:00

Following through on his campaign promises, President Elect, Barack Obama and Vice President Elect, Joe Biden already have a strong sense of how they plan to end the war in Iraq.

Read the entire article by Jason Leopold at The Public Record.

also read it firsthand at and follow along at Barack Obama’s newly launched online ‘transition’ website change.gov – office of the President-Elect.

The president-elect said one of his first policy directives after he is sworn into office will be giving military commanders and the Secretary of Defense "a new mission in Iraq: ending the war."

On the SOFA; which needs to be worked out between the U.S. and Iraq by Dec 31, 2008 since that is when the United Nations mandate that allows foreign soldiers to operate in country expires

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel," his proposal says. "They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

The Obama team also said that a Status of Forces Agreement Bush is currently negotiating with the Iraqi government must be approved by Congress or must include input from Obama and his foreign policy advisers before being signed.

“The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," according to Obama’s transition website.

"Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases," states the proposal. "Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress.”

‘SOFA’ US-Iraq Troop Deal Unsteady – troops to leave Iraq or subject to Iraqi punishment for crimes

2008-10-28T14:28:00.001-07:00

As I understand the SOFA (status of forces agreement), the urgency now underway is to come to a mutual agreeable agreement before Dec 31, 2008 as that is when the ?? ‘legality’ ?? of U.S. troops in accordance with UN mandate ends. The Iraqi government has not reached agreement with President Bush, and speculation is that Iraqis know there will be a new Administration after U.S. November elections and would rather wait and deal with the new Administration which will take office Jan 2009.

What this means for the deployed troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, 2008 is that they need to remove or remain on their bases. Troops not on their bases and found to be committing a crime (this would be according to Iraqi definitions of a crime) would be subject to Iraqi criminal justice system. I don’t have much of an idea of what an Iraqi criminal justice system looks like, but I can take an awkward guess and it doesn’t seem very reassuring that our U.S. troops deployed by this President/Commander-in-Chief have much protection from Iraqi criminal justice after December 31, 2008.

Look, I get it that all sides have been subject to violence resulting in maiming and death on a massive scale and being concerned about this element in the duration of the now 6 year war in Iraq is but one of a continuum of ongoing concerns. But this is an Administration who has clearly demonstrated a total disregard for the status of deployed U.S. troops and the preciousness of life on all sides. I have no reason to have trust or confidence that this President will preside with enough prescience to adequately deal with this development, any more than he has demonstrated prescience to deal with the ongoing developments of the last eight years of his administration. He is more than likely willing to play out the time he has left in office and leave it to the next administration to resolve.

I do take some reassurance that the Pentagon, Generals, and chain of command understand the stakes and will advocate on behalf of the troops, and this development cannot wait until January; it needs attention and resolution now! With my son-in-law deployed in Iraq now in his second ‘stop-loss’, extended 15 month deployment, it is discomforting enough, but to think he may be at risk now as well to Iraqi sense of justice is frightening. With the complete injustice of this war and the Iraqi people having reason beyond reasonable reaction to hate America and American troops, I shudder to think……

Video below explains much better than my grasping at words. Please watch the video. Read more at the news source, The Real News Network here.

Must our sons and daughters defends us by mindless killing?

2008-10-19T10:26:00.001-07:00

Excerpt from Article in Common Dreams:

Soldiers of Conscience: Opposing the Iraq War

by Jessica Mosby

The new film Soldiers of Conscience documents soldiers who, during the middle of their deployments in Iraq, became conscientious objectors. The documentary, which premiers on PBS as part of thePoint of View series this week, is not 86 minutes of liberal-biased, anti-war propaganda; it is a very thoughtful exploration of the moral debate about killing during times of war. Filmmakers Gary Weimberg and Catherine Ryan made Soldiers of Conscience with cooperation from the United States Army.

The ethical dilemma that anchors the film is blatantly stated in the first few minutes - "At some point, every soldier has to face the question: Will I be able to kill another human being in combat?" Until recent wars most soldiers were not willing to kill; during WWII the military found that 75 percent of combat soldiers did not fire at the enemy when given the opportunity. "Reflexive fire training" - a technique now taught during basic training wherein firing a weapon becomes second nature - has increased firing rates to almost 90 percent.

Photo of mother at gravesite referenced by Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama

2008-10-19T10:04:00.001-07:00

The photo Colin Powell referenced in his endorsement of Barack Obama. The photo of mother at her son's gravesite, a young man, 20 years old, killed in Iraq, awarded Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Emblem on his gravesite is not the Christian cross, the Jewish Star of David, but the Muslim Crescent and Star. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, Cpl., U.S. Army, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was an American who was 14 at the time of 911. He waited until he was of age to enlist in military to serve his country (United States of America) and he gave his life for his country...the United States of America.

excerpt from the transcript of Colin Powell endorsement speech on Meet The Press today

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

Video of Colin Powell's endorsement speech of Barack Obama at Meet the Press today.

There is much to be mined from Colin Powell's speech that might resonate more strongly with others. Colin Powell, with this reference, eloquenty elevated a truth and reality of the constancy of our country's relationship to the Iraq war. I wanted to take a moment to share in elegance that truth, that reality, amidst all the background noise of the Presidential campaign.

It is not useful for me to editorialize or restate using my lesser words that which Colin Powell has brought into perspective with his own words. I hope, readers, you will take time to listen to Colin Powell and hear the words for yourselves.

Nixed - best plan to kill Bin Laden recalls Delta Force Commander; 60 Minutes Oct 2008

2008-10-09T12:12:00.003-07:00

Tora Bora - you've heard of it, right? No! Well I have heard it, remember it when the media was reporting on the war in Aghanistan to get the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, believed to be the orchestrater of the attacks on the the twin towers of The World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. I remember how it was more a 'blurb' in the media reporting and then media went onto report other things. I wanted to shout, wait, stop, back that up, what is that about our military being so near to capturing Bin Laden and being told not to proceed?

I would read articles, op-eds about Tora Bora in the years that followed (google Tora Bora). But it didn't quite ever come up again in the media as something in need of deeper investigation. Ah, but wasn't that true of so many things during that time period. A shaking, quaking media, either terrified or fooling themselves into believing the Bush Administration talking points they were fed was part of national security and oh - that whole 'patriotic'/not patriotic thing that went on in those early years.

'60 Minutes' segment, October 2008, titled 'Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt, Delta Force Commander Says The Best Plan To Kill The Al Qaeda Leader Was Nixed'.

Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon ordered a top secret team of American commandos into Afghanistan with a single, simple order: kill Osama bin Laden. It was America's best chance to eliminate the leader of al Qaeda. The inside story of exactly what happened in that mission, and how close it came to its objective has never been told until now.

The man you are about to meet was the officer in command, leading a team from the U.S. Army's mysterious Delta Force - a unit so secret, it's often said Delta doesn't exist. But you are about to see Delta's operators in action.

Why would the mission commander break his silence after seven years? He told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley that most everything he has read in the media about his mission is wrong and now he wants to set the record straight.

(hat tip for getting my attention to this story goes to jimstaro post at VetVoice)

Casulties may never be known, as is the case in every conflict, especially an Invasion by another Country.

2008-10-06T18:43:00.005-07:00

Read the entire article by jimstaro at Docudharma

HONORING THE FALLEN: US Military KIA, Iraq/Afghanistan - September 2008

Iraq

There have been 4,491 coalition deaths -- 4,177 Americans, 2 Australians, 1 Azerbaijani, 176 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, 1 Czech, 7 Danes, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonians, 1 Fijian, 5 Georgians, 1 Hungarian, 33 Italians, 1 Kazakh, 1 Korean, 3 Latvian, 22 Poles, 3 Romanians, 5 Salvadoran, 4 Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, 2 Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of October 3, 2008, according to a CNN count. { Graphical breakdown of casualties }. The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 30,680 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan.

HONORING THE FALLEN: US Military KIA, Iraq/Afghanistan - September 2008

Pfc. Christopher A. Bartkiewicz, 25, of Dunfermline, Ill., died Sept. 30 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his dismounted patrol using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment

Pfc. Christopher T. Fox 21 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Memphis, Tennessee Died of wounds suffered when he encountered small-arms fire while on patrol in Adhamiya, Iraq, on September 29, 2008

Pfc. Jamel A. Bryant 22 40th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division Belleville, Illinois Died in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident while on patrol in Wahida, Iraq, on September 27, 2008

Staff Sgt. Ronald Phillips Jr. 33 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Conway, South Carolina Died of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Bahbahani, Iraq, on September 25, 2008

Capt. Michael J. Medders 25 Ohio 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment Died of wounds suffered when a suicide bomber detonated a vest during operations in Jisr Naft, Iraq, on September 24, 2008

1st Lt. Thomas J. Brown 26 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division Burke, Virginia Died of wounds suffered when his patrol came under small-arms fire during dismounted operations in Salman Park, Iraq, on September 23, 2008

Staff Sgt. Matthew J. Taylor 25 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Charleston, South Carolina Died of wounds suffered when he received small-arms fire during dismounted operations in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 21, 2008

Chief Warrant Officer Corry A. Edwards 38 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Texas Army National Guard Kennedale, Texas One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

Sgt. Daniel M. Eshbaugh 43 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Oklahoma National Guard Norman, Oklahoma One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

Sgt. Anthony L. Mason 37 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Texas Army National Guard Springtown, Texas One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

1st Sgt. Julio C. Ordonez 54 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Texas Army National Guard San Antonio, Texas One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

Chief Warrant Officer Brady J. Rudolf 37 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Oklahoma National Guard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

Cpl. Michael E. Thompson 23 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Oklahoma National Guard Harrah, Oklahoma One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

1st Lt. Robert Vallejo II 28 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Texas Army National Guard Richland Hills, Texas One of seven soldiers killed when the CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were in crashed near Tallil, Iraq, on September 18, 2008

Pfc. Leonard J. Gulczynski I 19 610th Engineer Support Company, 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Engineer Brigade Carol Stream, Illinois Died of injuries sustained when his vehicle was involved in an accident in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 17, 2008

Capt. Darrick D. Wright 37 926th Engineer Brigade Nashville, Tennessee Died of a non-combat related illness in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 17, 2008

Lt. Col. Ralph J. Marino 46 U.S. Army Central Command Houston, Pennsylvania Died of a non-combat related illness at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, on September 14, 2008

Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson 24 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Pensacola, Florida One of two soliders killed during a non-hostile incident in Tunnis, Iraq, on September 14, 2008

Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin 26 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division Hurst, Texas One of two soliders killed during a non-hostile incident in Tunnis, Iraq, on September 14, 2008

Chaplain (Col.) Sidney J. Marceaux Jr. 69 Warrior Transition Brigade, Walter Reed Army Medical Center Beaumont, Texas Died of a non-combat related illness at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington D.C., on September 14, 2008

Sgt. 1st Class Daniel R. Sexton 53 164th Military Police Company Wentzville, Missouri Died of injuries sustained in a non-combat related incident at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, on September 10, 2008

Pvt. Jordan P. P. Thibeault 22 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division South Jordan, Utah Died of injuries sustained in a non-combat related incident at Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq, on September 5, 2008

Sgt. Kenneth W. Mayne 29 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia One of two soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 4, 2008

Pfc. Bryan R. Thomas 22 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Battle Creek, Michigan One of two soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 4, 2008

Pfc. Patrick W. May 22 Division Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Jamestown, New York Died of injuries suffered from a non-combat related incident in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 2, 2008

Afghanistan - The Still Forgotten War - and The Third Front Pakistan

There have been 977 coalition deaths -- 605 Americans, 6 Australians, 120 Britons, 97 Canadians, 3 Czech, 16 Danes, 17 Dutch, 3 Estonians, 1 Finn, 22 French, 23 Germans, 2 Hungarian, 12 Italians, 1 Latvian, 1 Lithuanian, 1 NATO/ISAF, 3 Norwegians, 8 Poles, 2 Portuguese, 8 Romanians, 1 South Korean, 23 Spaniards, 2 Swedes -- in the war on terror as of October 3, 2008, according to a CNN count. Below are the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The troops died in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or were part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. At least 2,490 U.S. personnel have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.

September 2008

Capt. Richard G. Cliff, Jr.29 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group Mount Pleasant, South Carolina One of three soldiers killed when the vehicle they were in encountered a roadside bomb during mounted operations in Yakchal, Afghanistan on September 29, 2008

Sgt. 1st Class Jamie S. Nicholas 32 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group Maysel, West Virginia One of three soldiers killed when the vehicle they were in encountered a roadside bomb during mounted operations in Yakchal, Afghanistan on September 29, 2008

Sgt. 1st Class Gary J. Vasquez 33 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group Round Lake, Illinois One of three soldiers killed when the vehicle they were in encountered a roadside bomb during mounted operations in Yakchal, Afghanistan on September 29, 2008

Sgt. William E. Hasenflu 38 1st Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division Bradenton, Florida Died from wounds suffered when his unit was ambushed by enemy forces using small arms fire in the Jaji District of Paktia province, Afghanistan, on September 28, 2008

Cpl. Maj. Alessandro Caroppo 23 8th Reggimento Bersaglieri (8th Bersaglieri Regiment) San Pietro Vernotico, Italy Died of natural causes in Herat, Afghanistan, on September 21, 2008

Staff Sgt. Nathan M. Cox 32 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Walcott, Iowa One of two soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, on September 20, 2008

Capt. Bruno Giancarlo de Solenni 32 Joint Forces Headquarters, Element Training Team, Oregon Army National Guard Crescent City, California Died of wounds sustained when a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on September 20, 2008

Pvt. Joseph F. Gonzales 18 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Tucson, Arizona One of two soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, on September 20, 2008

Cryptologic Technician Third Class Petty Officer Matthew J. O'Bryant 22 Navy Information Operations Command Maryland Duluth, Georgia Died in the bombing of the Mariott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, on September 20, 2008

Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez 34 86th Construction & Training Squadron El Paso, Texas Died of wounds suffered from a homemade bomb in Islamabad, Pakistan, on September 20, 2008

Sgt. Jerome C. Bell Jr. 29 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Auburn, New York Died while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan, on September 19, 2008

Staff Sgt. Brandon W. Farley 30 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Grand Prairie, Texas Died of wounds sustained when his mounted patrol was attacked by enemy forces using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades in Able Monti, Afghanistan, on September 18, 2008

Sgt. Joshua W. Harris 21 2nd Battalion 122nd Field Artillery, Illinois Army National Guard Romeoville, Illinois One of four soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Gerdia Seria, Afghanistan, on September 17, 2008

Capt. Bruce E. Hays 42 Wyoming Joint Forces Headquarters, Wyoming Army National Guard Cheyenne, Wyoming One of four soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Gerdia Seria, Afghanistan, on September 17, 2008

1st Lt. Mohsin A. Naqvi 26 1st Battalion, 11th Infantry Newburgh, New York One of four soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Gerdia Seria, Afghanistan, on September 17, 2008

Staff Sgt. Jason A. Vazquez 24 2nd Battalion 122nd Field Artillery, Illinois Army National Guard Chicago, Illinois One of four soldiers killed when their vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Gerdia Seria, Afghanistan, on September 17, 2008

Lance Cpl. Nicky Mason 26 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment Aveley, Essex, England Died as a result of an explosion during a routine patrol near Kajaki in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on September 13, 2008

Pvt. Jason Lee Rawstron 23 Company C, 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment Lancashire, England Killed when his patrol were engaged in an exchange of fire near Forward Operating Base Gibraltar in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on September 12, 2008

Chief Petty Officer Jason Richard Freiwald 30 Naval Special Warfare Development Group Armada, Michigan Died on September 12, 2008, from injuries sustained during combat operations in Afghanistan on September 11, 2008

Senior Chief Petty Officer John Wayne Marcum 34 Naval Special Warfare Development Group Flushing, Michigan Died September 12, 2008, from injuries sustained during combat operations in Afghanistan on September 11, 2008

Pvt. Michael W. Murdock 22 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Chocowinity, North Carolina Died of wounds suffered when he was struck by enemy fire at Combat Outpost Lybert at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, on September 11, 2008

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Slebodnik 39 2nd Battalion, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 101st Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division Gibsonia, Pennsylvania Died of wounds suffered when the aircraft he was piloting received enemy fire near Forward Operating Base Nagil, Afghanistan, on September 11, 2008

Warrant Officer Class 2 Gary O'Donnell 40 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps Edinburgh, Scotland Killed when a roadside bomb detonated in Musa Qaleh in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on September 10, 2008

1st Lt. Nicholas A. Madrazo 25 Headquarters Battery, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force Bothell, Washington Died while supporting combat operations in Parwan province, Afghanistan, on September 9, 2008

Capt. Jesse Melton III 29 Headquarters Battery, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force Randallstown, Maryland Died while supporting combat operations in Parwan province, Afghanistan, on September 9, 2008

Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Eichmann A. Strickland 23 Combat Service Support Det. 36, Arlington, Washington Killed when the vehicle he was driving hit a roadside bomb in Afghnya Valley, Afghanistan, on September 9, 2008

Pfc. Jos ten Brinke 21 41 Pantsergeniebataljon (41st Armored Engineering Battalion) Rekken, Netherlands Killed when a roadside bomb detonated 12 miles (19 km) north of Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, on September 7, 2008

Sgt. Prescott Shipway 35 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Saskatoon, Canada Killed when his armored vehicle struck a roadside bomb during a security patrol in the Panjwayii district of Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on September 7, 2008

Pvt. Michael R. Dinterman 18 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Littlestown, Pennsylvania Died of wounds suffered when he received enemy fire while on dismounted patrol at Oustpost Restrepo, Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on September 6, 2008

Spc. Marques I. Knight 24 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division San Juan Capistrano, California Died of wounds suffered when received small-arms fire while on dismounted patrol in Aliabad, Afghanistan, on September 6, 2008

Ranger Justin James Cupples 29 Company C, 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment County Cavan, Ireland Killed when a roadside bomb detonated during a foot patrol in Sangin in northern Helmand province, Afghanistan, on September 4, 2008

Pvt. Vincent C. Winston Jr. 22 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division St. Louis, Missouri Died of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on September 4, 2008

Cpl. Andrew Paul Grenon 23 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Windsor, Canada One of three Canadian soldiers killed after an insurgent attack on their armored vehicle during a security patrol in the Zharey district of Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on September 3, 2008

Pvt. Chadwick James Horn 21 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Calgary, Canada One of three Canadian soldiers killed after an insurgent attack on their armored vehicle during a security patrol in the Zharey district of Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on September 3, 2008

Cpl. Michael James Alexander Seggie 21 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Calgary, Canada One of three Canadian soldiers killed after an insurgent attack on their armored vehicle during a security patrol in the Zharey district of Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on September 3, 2008

Sgt. 1st Class Gregory A. Rodriguez 35 K-9 unit of the 527th Military Police Company, 709th Military Police Battalion, 18th MP Brigade Weidman, Michigan Died of wounds suffered when his mounted patrol came under small-arms fire in Ana Kalay, Afghanistan, on September 2, 2008

Civilian Casulties - Iraq

Over a million {*1,273,378} Iraqis are estimated to have been killed as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. Learn More and Take Action»
*Estimate, click for explaination

John Hopkins School of Public Health { October 11, 2006 report } puts the count at 650,000, with a range from 400,000 to 900,000.

Exact Count of Civilian Casulties may never be known, as is the case in every conflict, especially an Invasion by another Country. For it is the Innocent Civilians and those Defending their Countries {of which All would be counted if this land were ever invaded} who suffer the most, during and long after!

Iraq Refugees UNHCR: UNHCR Global Appeal 2008-2009 - Iraq Situation

Filetype: PDF (116k)

All the Deaths, Maimings and Destruction are the Blood on All Our Hands, No One can escape the Guilt!

As Of October 5, 2008, There Are 89 Pages w/5 'Silent Honor Rolls' Each, Number Of Casulties Varies With Each 'Silent Honor Roll'; Many now have numbers in the teens and twenties, click on graphic.

A Nations Security Does Not Mean A Nation Sets An Example Of Creating More Hatreds And Enemies By

'Wars Of Choice'

, Nor By Installing And Supporting Dictators, It Leads By The Example Of Peace And Prevention, Especially As A Democracy, Gaining Friends And Supporters, And Defends With Force Only When All Other Options Are Exhausted

97 percent of U.S. deaths in Iraq have occurred after George W. Bush declared an end to "major combat."

"Mission Accomplished!"

" What does it matter to the dead, the orphan, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

- Mohandas K. Gandhi

The Failed Policies will Haunt Us and the World for Decades!!

Bill would open military funerals to media

Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., said Friday that legislation he co-sponsored this week would highlight the sacrifices made by members of the military.

And To Think We, the United States, Need A Congressional Bill For The Above???

Use of military in quelling domestic unrest a scary sign- Seattle PI reports

2008-10-02T09:28:00.006-07:00

A little-noticed story surfaced a couple of weeks ago in the Army Times newspaper about the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team. "Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months," reported Army Times staff writer Gina Cavallaro, "the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." Disturbingly, she writes that "they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control" as well.

The force will be called the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive Consequence Management Response Force. Its acronym, CCMRF, is pronounced "sea-smurf." These "sea-smurfs," Cavallaro reports, have "spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle," in a combat zone, and now will spend their 20-month "dwell time" -- time troops are required to spend to "reset and regenerate after a deployment" -- armed and ready to hit the U.S. streets.

read article at Seattle PI.

I posted a story at Washblog, on Sept 24, 2008 titled 'Brigade begins Homeland deployments Oct 1; Army has Ray Gun for riot/crowd control'
which had me concerned, having read of these 2 separate items that morning in my internet news reads. At about the same time, the overriding news was of the impending financial collapse on Wall Street and the critical effects it would have on Main Street. It is not easy to get a shout out of concern to rise to the din level the economic crisis has raised for Americans. I didn't expect the Washblog story to get any attention, and it didn't. Thought I'd repost the story here - I'm still concerned.

U.S. Army battalion troops deploy to - well U.S.A.! And U.S. Army has a Ray Gun. Reading these two items together and one could wonder why U.S. active Army battalion needs to deploy to non-combat zones on America homeland soil, while state level National Guard troops need to deploy to combat zones in Iraq. And one could wonder about this scenario as well. U.S. Army being aware of and urgently requesting the non-lethal Ray Gun for use in Iraq and Afghanistan was denied permission. Weapon shown to be effective in riot and crowd control via practice demonstrations using people acting as 'peace protesters'.

at Army Times; Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, 2008.

at CBS 60 Minutes Will Army's Ray Gun See Action?

A non-lethan military weapon effective in riot and crowd control, huh? Where? Here or 'over there'? Both actually. And why hasn't it been used 'over there' (Iraq, Afghanistan) and when will it be used here? Already peaceful protesters are set apart in cages and monitored by police in full riot gear, is it just a matter of when the Ray Gun will be brought to bear on protest demonstrations?

Could have been less killing in Iraq and Afghanistan?! See the August 2007 MSNBC story 'Energy Beam Could Be Used in Iraq' - officials refuse.

Meanwhile the plan to deploy U.S. Army battalion here at home;

excerpts from the Army Times article

3rd Infantry's 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping `people at home' may become a permanent part of the active Army. After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

Don't look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

More than 20,000 Army National Guard Soldiers were notified by the Army to prepare for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these are second deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Washington. The "Ravens" of Washington's 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team are based in Seattle, Washington, and includes units from Washington and California. It mobilized in August 2008 and will to Iraq in autumn 2008. 2nd deployment - the brigade last deployed to Iraq from March 2004 through March 2005.

New Jersey. The "Jersey Blues" - the 50th Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the New Jersey Army National Guard, based at Fort Dix - includes units from across the state. The brigade mobilized in May 2008 and will deploy to Iraq in autumn 2008. This will be the brigade's first deployment.

Hawaii and Arizona. The 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team headquartered at Fort Ruger, Hawaii, includes units from across Hawaii and Arizona. The brigade mobilized in June 2008 and will deploy to Iraq in autumn 2008. 2nd deployment for the "Lava Brigade" which served in Iraq from January through December of 2005.

Texas .The 56th Brigade Combat Team of the 36th Infantry Division includes units from across Texas. The "Thunderbolt Brigade" mobilized in July 2008 and will deploy to Iraq in autumn 2008. 2nd deployment - the brigade last deployed to Iraq from December 2004 through December 2005.

Pennsylvania. "The Associators" of the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division, are headquartered in Philadelphia. They are expected to mobilize in November 2008 and deploy to Iraq in early 2009. The brigade, which includes units from across Pennsylvania, is the only Stryker Brigade Combat Team in the Army National Guard, and one of just seven in the Army. This will be the brigade's first deployment as a unit, although small units from the brigade have previously deployed (2nd deployments) in support of operation Iraqi Freedom.

North Carolina and West Virginia. The 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the North Carolina Army National Guard, based in Clinton, includes units from North Carolina and West Virginia. "Old Hickory" will mobilize in January 2009 and deploy to Iraq in spring 2009. 2nd deployment - the brigade last deployed to Iraq from February 2004 through February 2005.

Illinois. The 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, headquartered in Decatur, Illinois, mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in August 2008. The "Prairie" Brigade is expected to deploy in autumn 2008 to Afghanistan, where it will train the Afghan National Army. In January 2002, one of the brigade's battalions mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and deployed to Germany to provide force protection at U.S. facilities across Europe.

Oklahoma and Utah Oklahoma's 45th Fires Brigade, based in Enid, is also scheduled to deploy to Iraq. It includes units from Oklahoma and Utah. "Red Thunder" is expected to mobilize in June 2008 and deploy to Iraq in autumn 2008 where it will augment the 29th IBCT in its assigned mission. 2nd deployments the 45th Fires Brigade deployed two battalions to Iraq in 2003.

(per info at Texas Army National Guard website)

[updates]

[Update #1] article at Baltimore Chronicle;'WARNING: U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?' Oct 1, 2008

an article republished with permission to the Baltimore Chronicle describes author, Chuck Baldwin as a minister who holds two doctorates of divinity, hosts a radio program called "Chuck Baldwin Live,' whose broadcast area includes the Florida Panhandle and Southern Alabama. The program is described on its website as "conservative, Christian, pro-life, pro-family, and patriotic. We support constitutional government and the Bill of Rights. We hold fast to the principles and values expressed by the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence."
Quoting an excerpt from Chuck Baldwin article at Baltimore Chronicle;

One of America's most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America's founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian--not military--government.

And after the fiasco of the abuse of federal troops in the South following the War Between the States, the doctrine of Posse Comitatus was enacted into law. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia says this about Posse Comitatus:

of note (or perhaps bias): Chuck Baldwin (the author) was the Constitution Party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate on a ticket headed by Michael Peroutka of Millersville, Md., a graduate of Loyola College in Maryland and the University of Baltimore School of Law.

[Update #2] article at Salon 'Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?' Sept 24, 2008 by Glenn Greenwald.

His article indicates bloggers who were blogging about it; the lack of any media mention or coverage and discusses The Posse Comitatus Act.

excerpts from his article at Salon

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."
excerpt - his second update to his article

There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

my thought; Oh, don't I shudder to think what John McCain, eager for war on any front would do if he is elected and assumes the expanded powers of the Presidency.

[Update #3] Martial Law threatened to some in Congress if Financial Bailout not passed, per Rep. Brad Sherman at his speech to U.S. House of Representatives. Video of the youtube excerpt of the C-Span coverage.
No, I don't want it to be true, and yes, I'm a bit of a nervous nellie these days, still holding my breath till the November election. Again, a series of coincidences, and in stringing coincidences together raising my own anxiety level, my intent is not so much to pass anxiety on to others, as much as get this recorded in one place at WB.

In November perhaps I can look back at this diary and feel foolish and that's okay with me. I've become wary of this Administration for good reason; and an extension of that is being wary of the Republican machine at work as it marches on seemingly easily exploitable by small extremist factions intent on an agenda not widely understood or grasped within or amongst the larger party.

here is link to video segment from C-Span of Rep. Brad Sherman's statement to the House of Representatives and quoted excerpt:

'many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall, that the market would drop 2 or 3 thousand points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be 'martial law in America' if we voted no. That's what I call fear-mongering', unjustified, proven wrong. We've got a week, we've got two weeks to write a good bill. The only way to pass a bad bill -- keep the panic on'

Bush Speech Invade Iraq 2003; his same speech for Financial Bailout 2008

2008-09-26T08:32:00.004-07:00

Bush 2003 Scares U.S. into Iraq invasion; Bush 2008 Scares U.S. into Financial Bailout -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show shows the side by side almost exact speech of President Bush on Iraq 2003, President Bush on Financial Bailout 2008.

Rachel Maddow: Bush Admin wants Iraq war continued additional year - just because......

2008-09-24T08:00:00.004-07:00

Because why? 'due to political circumstances related to the U.S. domestic situation'
Iraq Prime Minister Maliki suggested troop withdrawal by end of 2010 would work for them; Bush Admin comes back asking for troop withdrawal by end of 2011 'due to political circumstances related to the U.S. domestic situation'. In other words, it is good for U.S. politically -- why? You tell me!

McCain and the POW Cover-up

2008-09-22T06:27:00.001-07:00

McCain and the POW Cover-up

The "war hero" candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam

Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. This is an expanded version, with primary documents attached, of a story that appears in the October 6, 2008 issue of The Nation.

By Sydney H. Schanberg
September 18, 2008
Entire article can be read at The Nation Institute
[Excerpts]

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents.

Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books. The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind."

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon's performance was an insider, Air Force Lieut. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon's position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. ... Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

But a few months later, a new measure, known as "the McCain Bill," suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. (See one example, at left, when the Pentagon cited McCain's bill in rejecting a FOIA request.) The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence—documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs' sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned—has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the "bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists."

He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as "hoaxers," charlatans," "conspiracy theorists" and "dime-store Rambos."

Some of McCain's fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn't share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter—a response to McCain's stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote:

"John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were 'last known alive'? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?"

Powered by Qumana

It Begins; Announced - Intentions to Prosecute President Bush

2008-09-16T09:30:00.005-07:00

Announcing Plans to Prosecute Bush in Vermont

Renowned Criminal Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi Joins Vermont Attorney Charlotte Dennett To Announce Intentions To Bring Legal Proceedings Against President Bush

Press conference to be held at:

Burlington City Hall. Contois Auditorium on September 18, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

Vincent Bugliosi, the legendary criminal prosecutor and bestselling author of 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder', will appear in Burlington with Charlotte Dennett, a Cambridge-based attorney and Progressive Party candidate for Attorney General, on Thursday, September 17 at Burlington City Hall at 10 a.m. The two attorneys will announce their intention to commence criminal proceedings against George W. Bush in the event that Dennett succeeds in her bid to become the next Attorney General of Vermont.

As a Los Angeles District Attorney, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. He is best known for prosecuting Charles Manson, an experience he memorialized in his book Helter Skelter. His most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, has become a sensation since its publication this summer. "I have never received such a passionate response as I have to this book," says Bugliosi. "Most Americans are deeply offended that George W. Bush has not been held accountable for his many crimes while in office, the most egregious of which is the murder of over 4,000 American soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. My book lays out the framework of how he can be brought to justice in any state in this country; a framework which I hope will serve notice to future occupants in the White House."

Dennett has been practicing law in Vermont since 1997 and has been an investigative journalist for more than 30 years. "When I read Mr. Bugliosi’s meticulously-argued case," says Dennett, "it struck a chord with me as a Vermonter and an American citizen. Tragically, our state has the highest per capita loss of soldiers. 36 towns have voted to impeach President Bush. We Vermonters fiercely cherish our democracy and our country's Constitution. We're up for this fight."

from posts by David Swanson at Afterdowningstreet.org

Three Iraq Veterans were Speakers at the DNC in support of Barack Obama; Maj. Tammy Duckworth, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, medic Michael Wilson

2008-08-29T08:56:00.012-07:00

Capt. Tammy Duckworth, returning Iraq Vet OIF, Illinois Veterans Affairs Dept. Director - addressing 2008 Dems Convention - video

(see transcript of her speech at Docudhama blog.)

Four years ago, I was co-piloting a Blackhawk helicopter north of Baghdad when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit. My buddies carried my body out not knowing if I was dead or alive. They knew the soldier's creed: never leave a fallen comrade behind. They lived up to it. They risked their own lives to save mine.

Because of them, I am here today, an Iraq war veteran, a female helicopter pilot and a wounded warrior-living in a country where people with disabilities have rights. Because of them, I am here today, an Asian American, a Daughter of the American Revolution as well as a daughter of an immigrant.

Acts of courage like theirs happen everywhere American troops serve. They are happening right now. I know that-so does my family. My father served in Vietnam, my brother served in the Coast Guard, my husband just returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. We served because we believe in this great nation and the opportunities it has given us. And because our service members support us, we must always keep the faith with them.

The administration of George Bush-supported by John McCain every step of the way-has let our warriors down. Our troops are courageous, strong and fierce. This administration has re-deployed them until they are overstretched, stressed and strained.

Our warriors should fight in Afghanistan where al-Qaida and the Taliban are on the offensive.

But instead of destroying the enemies who attacked us on 9/11, we have diverted our military might to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. When our warriors come home they deserve the best VA medical care, but too often they get bureaucracy, not benefits. They find inadequate access, inferior facilities and infuriating paperwork.

And now, John McCain wants to ration care. Under his plan, the VA will serve combat injuries, but everyone else gets an insurance card. Barack Obama and the Democrats have a different idea. Barack Obama will live up to their tradition of honor and sacrifice. Barack Obama will use war not as a first choice, but a last resort. Barack Obama understands that for a commander-in- chief to support the military, he needs more than a "Mission Accomplished" banner, more than wearing a borrowed flight suit, and definitely more than four more years of the same failed foreign policy.

President Obama will restore the might of the military, invest in our troops and only send our sons and daughters to war if they have a clearly defined mission and the tools they need to succeed.

I speak from more than a gut feeling on this. I know Barack Obama. I met him when he visited me and other wounded troops at Walter Reed. He came without reporters. He wasn't looking for credit. He just cared about how we were doing. He knew that wherever you stand on the war, you must love the warrior, and he does.

I testified before his committee; I listened to him talk, but then I watched what he did and how he voted. As a Senator, Barack Obama worked to improve the lives of all our veterans. He fought to fix our rundown hospitals. He fought to cut through the red tape. Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama fought for a new GI bill-and won-so that every veteran has the same opportunity to pursue their American dream just like his grandfather had after World War II. So I know what he'll do as president.

An America with President Obama will have a 21st century VA. He'll improve access to health care. He'll speed up disability claims. He'll increase services for nationwide post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries as we have already done in Illinois under Governor Blagojevich's leadership.

And Barack Obama will have a simple principle for homeless veterans: zero tolerance, because we are all dishonored when those who've worn the uniform sleep on our streets. But here's what he won't do: President Obama will reject John McCain's plan to privatize the VA system. We won't force veterans to search for medical care with nothing but a plastic card and the promise of payment. We won't have means testing for access to the VA. Why? Because Barack Obama knows this: no one asked us where we lived or how much money we had when we enlisted, and no one should ask us that after we've bled for our country.

Fellow Democrats, fellow Americans: I believe in this nation that I love more than my own life.

Today we have an opportunity to honor our military men and women by living up to that soldier's creed. Today we have an opportunity to give our veterans the benefits they rightfully earned. Today we have the opportunity to change our relations with the world.

I believe that America will elect the leader who has always fought to keep our nation's promise to our veterans. I believe America will elect the leader who can best keep this nation strong.

Barack Obama is right for our military. Barack Obama is right for our veterans. Barack Obama is right for our country. And that's why Barack Obama will be our next commander-in-chief.

God bless you, and always, God bless America.

2nd Lt. Patrick Murphy,returning Iraq Veteran - OIF, U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, 8th District - addressing 2008 Dems Convention - video

(see transcript of her speech at Docudhama blog.)

We called it fire month. It was 138 degrees inBaghdad in August of 2003and my fellow paratroopers and I were running convoys up and down Ambush Alley. We were scouting for roadside bombs and rooftop snipers while riding in a humvee without any doors.

One day, my gunner said to me, "Sir, what are we doing here?"Baghdad was a stop on a journey that began for me 15 years ago when I first put on the uniform of the United States Army. My journey took me from ROTC cadet to West Point professor to captain in the 82nd Airborne Division and eventually to the United States Congress. For me, a blue-collar kid from a row house in northeastPhiladelphia, this was the chance to not only serve the country I love, but to live the American dream.

When I returned fromIraq, I realized we didn't just need change over there, we also needed to change how we treat our veterans here at home. For eight long years, we've had a president who rushed to stand with soldiers at political rallies but abandoned them at Walter Reed. We've had a president who spent billions on private contractors but not on body armor for our troops. We've had a president who was there for the photo ops, but AWOL when it came to doing right by our veterans. It is time for a change.

In the Army, we have a saying: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." It is time for a president who leads. And it's time for a commander-in-chief who knows that leadership means serving our troops as well as they serve our country.

Barack Obama will be that commander-in-chief. With a grandfather who marched in General Patton's army, Senator Obama understands the needs of our nation and our military. That's why he led the fight to end the injustice at Walter Reed and end homelessness among our veterans. That's why he led the fight to make sure that returning veterans get the mental health care they deserve. And that's why I am proud to stand with him as he leads the fight for a smarter and tougher foreign policy, so that we can finally end the war in Iraq, go after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and defeat them where they are strongest, inAfghanistan.

Our brave men and women in uniform and our great country cannot afford more of the same. It is time for the change our troops, our veterans and our country need. It is time for Barack Obama.

Registered Republican, medic Mike Wilson, returning Iraq veteran, nominated Obama at Demcoratic National Convention - video

from McClatchey - Washington

DENVER — Mike Wilson, an Iraq War veteran from Melbourne, Fla., had no idea when he contributed $5 to Barack Obama's campaign last September it would lead to a speaking part at the Democratic National Convention.

On Wednesday, Wilson, a registered Republican, learned that he'd been tapped to officially nominate Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.

Wilson knew he was getting three minutes on stage, but the national party didn't announce until Wednesday that he would make the official nomination.

The $5 campaign contribution — and an essay explaining why the registered Republican was supporting Obama — won him dinner with the Illinois senator last September -- and now, a 3-minute gig at the convention.

"I got an e-mail from his national campaign manager, he said Senator Obama remembered me from dinner and wanted me to do the honor of speaking for him," Wilson said. "I was totally blown away.''

He and Janet Lynn Monaco, a Melbourne pet store owner, took the stage Wednesday to, as the campaign says, "celebrate how everyday Americans are coming together to change the course of a nation."

"Just your average beer drinking guy down the street, that's me," Wilson said.

"Even though I'm a registered Republican I would hope people would vote across party lines for the candidate who would do the best job," Wilson said. "The Republicans don't really have a candidate who reflects the path America should take."

Bugliosi testimony at 'Impeachment Hearing' of Bush Administration; July 25, 2008

2008-07-26T15:24:00.006-07:00

There was an Impeachment Hearing in Congress on Friday, July 25, 2008 (google Impeachment Hearings in news to read more - here is brief synopsis). Maybe it wasn't widely reported in the news, but C-Span did carry it - 6 hours. Rep. Kucinich was persistent in getting the Hearing, and while it was more of a Hearing to determine if Impeachment Hearing should be initiated, it did provide for testimony entered into the Congressional Record. I'm delighted that Vincent Bugliosi was invited to share testimony based on his latest released book (which we bought and own) 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder'

Here are the three youtube videos of Vincent Bugliosi testimony at the Hearing.

Vincent Bugliosi at the Hearing, in response to question from Rep. Jackson Lee. Bugliosi makes the case for why Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States of America. Bugliosi makes important distinction that it was moot whether Saddam did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. Rather that in classified document provided to this Administration, 16 intelligence agenices counseled and advised that Saddam was not a threat; whereas the White Paper presented by the Administration to Congress and the American people did not disclose this advising counsel. Rather the White Paper presented as fact (that Saddam was an imminent threat to U.S.) when, in fact, it was not factual. Thus is the lie by which this Administration perpetrated on this country, leading the U.S. to invade Iraq on an entirely false premise.

Who killed the electric car? - video

2008-07-14T09:29:00.001-07:00

Bugliosi's book spells out case against George W. Bush for Murder. Is momentum building?

2008-07-11T08:47:00.007-07:00

I ordered Vincent Bugliosi's newest book 'The Prosectution of George W. Bush for Murder' from my local library and began reading it a couple weeks ago. My husband, rather intrigued, asked if he could take it to work with him to read during breaks and I agreed. So I haven't finished reading the book -- yet. But as much as I've read has been exactly right on the mark.

Learned of the book, and was ready to put off reading yet another book about the lying President, but I already have respect for Vincent Bugliosi for his successful prosectution of Charles Manson, and the book he wrote about that trial 'Helter Skelter'. So I took a chance on the library being able to obtain it for me sometime. Wasn't even sure it would be in library circulation yet as the book is fairly newly released. I was surprised when the library phoned me to pick up the books I ordered and one of the books was 'The Prosectuion of George W. Bush for Murder'. So I started reading on a quiet early morning.

This past year I've been working on trying to quiet down from the intensity of the past five years of my activism as a military family speaking out. My perpetual state of anger and outrage has put me out of balance and harmony with my own internal life and well being. I was somewhat sure the Bugliosi's book would harness and regnerate all that intensity, so was reluctant to take the plunge, yet I have carried without reservation in my heart that this man who holds the office of President of the United States and ordered up on lies and deceptions this war in Iraq with all of it the devastating carnage of killing, death, dying, horrific maiming deserves to be on the receiving end of justice - and not simply an impeachment from which he can walk away pretty much unscathed, unrepentent, without remorse and without accountability for what he has unleashed.

Having George W. Bush prosecuted for murder by the legal system in this country fits for me, and having him declared guilty and spending time jailed works for me. The case laid out by Bugliosi in a call to action for such a prosecution is an effort and action I can support and get behind. I'm not sorry then that I felt compelled to seek out Bugliosi's book 'The Prosectution of George W. Bush for Murder'.

I was all the more compelled when I read this from article by Linda Milazzo who interviewed Bugliosi about his new book

Vince doesn't use a computer. He writes his books long hand on canary pads. He has no email address, doesn't surf the web, doesn't google, doesn't have a cell phone, and doesn't know the rest of us exist! He laughs when I tell him the blogosphere has become the mainstream. He doesn't know what a blog is, or a website. He's amused by the iPod I use to record our talk, and amazed by the iPhone I use to take his photo (above). Yet for all his lack of technology savvy, he did comprehend that without one corporate TV appearance and no major newspaper review, his book still debuted at #17 on the New York Times Best Seller list and at #30 on Amazon.com. Three weeks ago, when his book first launched to a corporate media blackout, his book signing lines at Book Expo America in Los Angeles were two hours long. When I explain to Vince that the internet drove that enthusiasm, he begins to catch on.

As I began reading the book, with the recognition that Bugliosi was not following the Iraq war using internet, but the more traditional news media, so he was not exposed to what some like to dismiss as radical, revolutionary or conspiracy theory kind of mentality. And as I was reading how Bugliosi came to arrive at his conclusion that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder, I felt like I was reviewing a history of the many of the postings I've placed here over the years at my own blog, Dying to Preserve the Lies.

Apparantly there is a corporate or media blackout on promoting Bugliosi's book - an experience he has not encountered in his years of authoring books . Given the topic and title of his book, why am I not surprised that media won't touch his book. But that hasn't prevented his book from reaching #12 on the New York Times Best Seller List. The word is getting out, and I look forward to seeing the momentum grow as the book (case) catches on amongst those with legal minds and in a position to do something.

From Linda Milazzo's interview with Vincent Bugliosi and her article on June 23, 2008 at Huffington Post - 'A Call to Heroes'

Which brings us to Vince's CALL TO HEROES. The heroes in Vince's case are those who would prosecute George W. Bush for murder in an American court of law - which includes the hundreds of city and county District Attorneys, the fifty State Attorneys General and any of the ninety-three U.S. Attorneys in the nintey-three federal districts for whom Vince established jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Vince is certain that amongst this vast population of prosecutors, there is at least one patriot who loves this nation deeply enough to hold Bush accountable for the murders of over 4,000 service men and women whom he lied into going to war.

The good news for whomever does step forward to take George Bush to task is the promise of assistance from Bugliosi himself - who as a prosecutor is held in the highest regard. In the words of famed defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, Vince is "the quintessential prosecutor." For Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Vince is "as good a prosecutor as there ever was." Thus, Vince's offer to serve as consultant to whomever accepts the case should be incentive enough to take it on - especially since whomever does take it on will encounter instant fame. Vince has also offered to accept a Special Prosecutor appointment from any U.S. Attorney or District Attorney who would like him to try the case.

Ingrigued? Interest piqued?

Then read an updated article from Linda Milazzo (also at Huffington Post) on June 29, 2008 - 'Momentum Building for Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush for Murder' and enjoy the five videos posted there of Bugliosi speaking about his book.

It is not my intent to regurgitate Linda's articles, there is no need, so read those for yourselves. But it is my intent to do my bit in promoting Vincent Bugliosi's book and I would love to see momentum build around an effort to do exactly that - prosecute George W. Bush for Murder. He has earned and deserves the scrutiny of the justice system for how he has abused and misappropriated the powers of the Office of the President of the United States.

Congressman Brian Baird talks on the issues at Town Hall Meeting July 1, 2008

2008-07-03T12:15:00.005-07:00

Attended U.S. Representative Brian Baird Town Hall Meeting in South Bend, Pacific County, Washington on July 1, 2008. I had very personal reasons for wanting to talk to Congressman Baird this year based on our experience talking with him at his Town Hall meeting last summer.

You may recall that last year Congressman Baird made national news in his support of the 'Surge' (of U.S. troops deployed to Iraq. We were in great opposition and wanted him to know as his constituents living in his district our views as a military family, with 2 returning Iraq veterans.

Congressman Brian Baird talking with Lietta Ruger, Town Hall Meeting, South Bend, July 1, 2008

(photo courtesy of Steven Friederich of the Daily World)

This year, at his Town Hall meeting, which covered a range of issues, I had opportunity to discuss the Surge one year later with him.

On Monday, June 30, I received an email from Congressman Baird’s office advising he was holding a Town Hall meeting in South Bend, on July 1 (the next day). He holds Town Hall meetings annually in towns and cities across his district. I wanted to attend, for a couple of reasons.

Some background: Last summer, Congressman Brian Baird held a Town Hall Meeting in Raymond, and this was at the time that Congressman Brian Baird who had voted against the invasion into Iraq, decided that he wanted to come out approving President Bush’s ‘Surge’ of U.S. troops in Iraq. Congressman Baird had made a trip to Iraq last year, to assess the situation of war in Iraq and had conversation with General Petreaus, coming home to believe in the value of proceeding with a Surge in U.S. troops deployed to Iraq. The deaths of U.S. troops was at an increasing frequency, and violence was rampant in Iraq, IED’s and suicide bombings - killing civilians, Iraqi police and soldiers, and U.S. troops. Last year, Congressman Baird made national news in his support for President Bush’s call for a ‘Surge’ (of troops) in Iraq.

My husband and I, being a military family with 2 returning Iraq veterans (both from Washington state), attended that Town Hall meeting in Raymond, WA last summer primarily to challenge the Congressman on his support of the ‘Surge’ and it was a contentious exchange with the Congressman. Please refer to the article ‘Baird faces his constituents in Raymond’ in Daily World last September.

The article features photo of my husband, Arthur Ruger, and the pointed question he put to Congressman Baird man to man -”was the war worth our son’s blood.”, to which the Congressman responded yes, he believed it was. That was a slap in the face to us, as we do not believe, have never believed this war was worth any son or daughter’s blood. It was important to me then, last night, a year later at the Town Hall Meeting in South Bend, for me to connect to the Congressman based on our exchange from last year. That same year, in December 2007 our son-in-law deployed to Iraq in his second 15 month stop-loss, extended deployment, where he is now.

I wanted very much to attend Congressman Baird’s Town Hall meeting last night, even though I seem to have run out of things to say about the wrongness of the Iraq war. We attended, and after Congressman Baird gave his presentations, he opened it to audience questions. I listened through all of the questions, intending to ask my two questions at the end of the proceedings.

Issues discussed during course of the meeting:

Gas Prices; Astonishingly - well to us anyway - when the question of gas prices came up, as we knew it would, and someone asked about off shore oil drilling and leased land not being used for oil drilling, Brian Baird started to discuss it and then asked the audience for a show of hands as to who was in favor of off-shore oil drilling. And almost all the hands went up. Then Brian Baird asked who was not in favor, with my husband, mine and probably 3-4 other hands going up.
I was stunned. And in somewhat confused language pointed out peak oil and global warming and then gave up, saying never mind. I could not believe what I had just witnesssed. An expectation that enough information is out there now about the growing oil crisis, that I had thought more would be appreciative of our need to change our lifestyle to become less oil dependent and the urgency in finding alternative energy lifestyles.

Acidic Ocean; Congressman Baird acknowledged Al Gore’s documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and then explained to the audience about acidic ocean, disappearing coral reefs, and how as a coastal community we should be concerned about our oceans. Then he answered other questions, and while I was listening attentively, I had already recognized that once again, our views on oil dependency (my husband and mine) were indeed the minority opinions amongst the community we live in. We’ve encountered this before along the course of our speaking out against the Iraq war as military family with loved ones deployed in Iraq.

Funding Iraq War vs Domestic Needs; Later when a young reporter from the Aberdeen Daily World newspaper tossed out a comment about trading off the $$ being spent in Iraq against using for homeland needs, Congressman Baird explained that we were not using current funds, rather creating a deficit that would be paid in our children and grandchildren’s time. As Congressman Baird explained it that were we to withdraw the troops now (which he then went on to explain was a time consuming process and needed to be done responsibly so as not to leave troops exposed and at-risk), there would still be no funds available to be used for domestic concerns. Rather that it would reduce somewhat the future deficit which would be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Copper Roof Replacement at Pacific County Courthouse; would cost considerably more than was originally estimated with rising costs of copper. Inquiry if the Congressman could get the county some $$ help to replace the copper roof. It being a historic building, must comply with regulations pertinent to historic buildings. (Read more about it at this Daily World article, ‘Costs of New Roof Skyrockets’)

The discussions flowed covering various issues:

Historic Post Office in Raymond lacking accessibility for disabled; seems because the Raymond Post Office is considered a historic building, and it lacks accessibility for disabled, changes cannot be made to the building to be more facilitative without regard to the regulations governing historic buildings. At this time, disabled citizens (wheelchair bound, or unable to manage the stairs) are unable to make access to the Post Office. (Read more about this at Daily World article, ‘Baird Hears of Acces Woes’)

Illegal Immigration: Someone asked the Congressman about illegal immigrants, and he responded by breaking it out into three categories;

a) illegal immigrants who are hardened criminals should be sent back to countries of origins, but how to do that - ask the country ‘hey will you take back so and so who is a hardened criminal?’;
b) illegal immigrants who are hired by employers knowingly as illegal and paid under the table should not be permitted to remain; and
c) illegal immigrants who are hired by employers who have verified social security number and background and taxes are being paid out of wages - those illegal immigrants have likely been here number of years, working all of those years and some provision should be provided that permits them to remain on worker permit. Congressman cited responsive employers like Coast Seafood who work to comply with current laws and have large number of immigrants employed.

Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study: Included was a concern expressed by owner of Rose Ranch regarding our area (Willapa region) becoming a National Heritage region. She identified probably 10 coalitions that have concerns should we become designated a National Heritage site. I have tried to blog some about this at Washblog, but am too underinformed to articulate the concerns well.As the meeting wrapped up, I was at last able to ask my two questions;

1) Senator Cantwell obtaining $2 million towards Doppler Radar for SW Washington due to the December 07 storm (read more here) , and what was his position on that? He said fully in support. Then I pointed out that while the $2 million was great it was going to take a lot more $$ to build the Doppler, and where would that money come from, would he work towards that end. He said something about $2 million being a big drop, and likely the rest of the money might have to come from the State.

2) Last year, in your Town Hall, we talked with you about our son in Iraq because you had just gone national in your approval of the Surge, and I guess I wanted to have you inquire how he is doing. Before I could finish the sentence though, it seemed that Congressman Baird did remember and did ask how our son was doing. Which left me with a weak follow up, that really that was all I wanted was for him to inquire after our son’s well being. Then the Congressman went on to explain why he took the position that he did last year on the Surge and how it seemed to be working, violence was down. I actually did find myself saying that conditions did seem to be more favorable to our son’s (actually it is son-in-law) deployment this time, or at least I’m relieved that if he has to be there, it isn’t the year before, and that I hope he gets through this deployment and safely home.

After the meeting concluded, Congressman Baird, did come over to where I was sitting, and had some private words with me. He wanted me to know that he cares, that what I was doing as a mother was natural and he was glad that I was doing what I was doing; that what my son was doing was patriotic and what I was doing was patriotic; that when he is in DC the groups that hold vigils in DC showing the 4,000 killed, he looks at each and every face and feels it deeply.

For the most part the words he chose to use with me were agreeable, but I didn’t like the words about patriotic - and I wasn’t altogether sure he understood that I am among those military families opposed to the war in Iraq and have been speaking out against the war in Iraq. Personally, I wouldn’t say the ‘Surge’ (of troops) in Iraq is working, that would really be beyond my ability to discern. But it does seem the violence is down, and whatever strategies are being used, our son-in-law who is deployed in Iraq now in his second ’stop-loss’, extended 15 month deployment seems to be less at risk than had he been deployed in Iraq a year earlier.

As Congressman Baird was shaking my hand and done with his part of the conversation, and before I could correct any misperceptions, others were coming around, and reaching out to me, whereby I offered my smiles of appreciation. Right about then someone else said to us, wait, wait, I didn’t get the picture, and then snap went the camera. I remember saying is this a photo op and we shouldn’t be smiling then. It was a confusing moment, and then there were 2 reporters wanting me to spell my name, wanting my son (son-in-law, I corrected) name which I never give, and the moment to correct any misperceptions that the Congressman might have about my position had passed.

More details of this Town Hall Meeting reported in the Aberdeen Daily World articles here and here.

Give an Hour - Free mental health counseling to US Military personnel and families

2008-06-14T09:11:00.007-07:00

Give an Hour is a non-profit organization asking mental health professionals nationwide to literally give an hour of their time each week to provide free mental health services to military personnel and their families.

This is 'news' to me, something I hadn't heard about yet, and I wanted to do my small part in helping to promote it as a resource. I'd like to give a shout out to visit their website to learn more about Give an Hour. The material and informtion at their website is well organized and self-explanatory.

I learned of Give an Hour in reading at diary at Daily Kos - jimstaro, a member of Veterans for Peace, that also has a brief video Helping warriors find peace of mind , which gives a bit of explanation about the concept of the organization, Give an Hour. The video features U.S. Army Col. James Bradley, Chief of Pyschiatry, at Walter Reed Medical Center making the statement that 'really what we are dealing with is normal reactions to abnormal circumstances'. the video also features Dr. Barbara Romberg, Founder Give an Hour. It is useful to both take a look at the short video, and then take a longer look at the Give an Hour website for additional and concrete information.

At a more local level, here in Washington state, I recently encountered a non-profit organization, The Soldiers Project Northwest, which is a group of mental health care providers in Washington is offering free help to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families who either can’t or don’t want to go through traditional channels for care. The Soldiers Project Northwest is a chapter of and modeled after a similar effort in Los Angeles, The Soldiers Project, where volunteer therapists since 2004 have seen clients without charge for help with their war-related problems.
(Read more at article, A New Source of Mental Health Care, for veterans in Tacoma News Tribune)

At a personal experience level, my son-in-law is deployed in Iraq again, in his second 15 month 'stop-loss' extended deployment. He will have 30 months in Iraq, but it is a higher number of months that he is away from his family as there is a 3 month lead in before he deploys, where he is away from his family training 'down-field' before he deploys. And then even when he is home, there is the ongoing training with a 'down-field' month of training about every quarter.

So overall he will have been absent from his family (wife and three children - my daughter and grandchildren) for about 40 months or more of 72 months since the war in Iraq was initiated. In this second deployment he is struggling with the fullness of the reality of it all - combat, extended absence from his family. My daughter is also having a more difficult time with him gone in this deployment. These long absences take their toll on both of them.

Their marriage continues to stand strong, but the absence is getting to both of them. The little ones, who are now 6 and 7 were only 1 and 2 when he left for the first deployment, so for most of their formative years, he has been gone in deployments in Iraq. He has stated how aware he has become of how much of their growing up years he has missed. These are years he and they can never get back. (As an aside, I have to question how the supposed 'family values' party can call their values 'family values' when they support this war and the impact it has on families on all sides.)

I also well remembered the Vietnam era, retuning troops with PTSD phenomenon, which actually gave us the name PTSD - previously named Battle Fatique or Soldier's Heart (see Frontline 'The Soldier's Heart'). I thought our country also remembered, and that what is well known in the professional mental health industry would have mental health therapists stepping up to the plate, knowing what we could expect with returning troops. I rather thought, perhaps erroneously, it was kind of a 'civilian duty' during time of war.

I'm so pleased to see the formations of these kinds of organizations reaching out to offer professional therapy help to military and their families

Growing Concerns with Readiness of U.S. Military Land Forces

2008-04-16T09:06:00.003-07:00

Growing concerns with the U.S. having enough Army and Marine Corps land forces to react to potential unforeseen crises overseas are drawing attention on Capitol Hill.

The concerns come as lawmakers craft fiscal 2009 defense bills and eye post-Bush administration budget-making, keeping in mind the looming potential for a significant number of troops operating in Iraq for years to come and the strain that deployments so far have placed on the volunteer U.S. military.

"We have had 12 military contingencies in the last 31 years, some of them major and most of them unexpected," House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said at a recent hearing.

"We must have a trained and properly equipped force ready to handle whatever comes. But my strong concern is that our readiness shortfalls and the limitations on our ability to deploy trained and ready ground forces have reached a point where these services would have a very steep uphill climb with increased casualties to respond effectively to an emerging contingency," Skelton said.

Skelton made the remarks at an April 9 hearing with the four-star vice chiefs of the Army and Marines, both of whom admitted that they were not satisfied with their respective service's so-called strategic depth to respond to crisis scenarios like the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.

Army Gen. Richard Cody testified that the Army remains "out of balance," repeating what has become a common official Army phrase referring to the need to recruit, station, train and equip soldiers for more than just counterinsurgency operations.

"The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies," Cody said.

"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies," the Army vice chief said.

read more at Military.com

Soldier took his wife's place in Iraq and was KIA

2008-04-16T08:55:00.001-07:00

A Virginia National Guardsman who re-enlisted so his wife, also a member of the National Guard, wouldn't have to go back to Iraq was killed April 16 when his vehicle struck a roadside bomb south of Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Jesse Ault of Dublin in Pulaski County was 28. He was serving with E Company in the 429th Brigade Support Battalion out of Roanoke.

A native of Wheeling, W.Va., who grew up in Middlebourne, W.Va., Ault joined the U.S. Army while still in high school and joined the National Guard after moving to Virginia.

Yesterday, his wife, Betsy Ault, said she and her husband were dating in 2004 when their unit was deployed to Balad, Iraq. They returned to Virginia and married, she said, and her husband was "100 percent family," relishing time spent playing with her son, Nathan, 10, and their toddler, Adam, 1. He was so devoted to the family, she said, that he decided to take her place after her unit was told it was being sent to Iraq.

"Jesse separated from the Guard after the deployment [to Iraq], but I was still serving when my unit was alerted early 2007," she said. "Jesse loved our family so much and saw how important it was for me to stay with my sons, he joined the National Guard again to take my place on the deployment.

read more at Military.com

Sgt Ronn Cantu - Vocal War Critic - Promoted !

2008-04-16T08:45:00.003-07:00

Sgt. Ronn Cantu -- one of the leading voices of dissent inside the U.S. Army -- has been promoted to staff sergeant.

Cantu had signed a petition to Congress demanding that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq, and he gave interviews to the news shows "60 Minutes" and "Democracy Now!," as well as to IPS, detailing his opposition. Some observers say Cantu's promotion shows that the military is now so stressed by the ongoing war that it is finding it difficult to crack down on dissent within the ranks.

Few members of the Armed Forces have made their disgust for the war in Iraq more public than Cantu. The 30-year-old Los Angeles native began speaking out during his second tour in Iraq, launching an online forum for anti-war GIs at Soldiersvoices.net, signing petitions against the war and giving interviews to major U.S. media outlets while still stationed in Baghdad.

Now, as a staff sergeant, Cantu said he'll teach the Soldiers under him to follow the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war.

"There's a lot of Soldiers out there who wouldn't recognize an unlawful order if it bit them on the behind," he said. "So I'm going to make sure the nine guys under me are very aware of the laws of armed conflict. I just want to make sure that they keep their ethics and moral standards and keep out of trouble should anything happen."

Cantu added that he hopes the Soldiers under his command will behave differently than his unit did during his first tour in Iraq.

"We had a policy of 'making a statement,'" he said. "If a bomb went off on our convoy, all of the guns would go off and we'd pretty much just pass punishment on the area we were in: windows, cars on the side of the road, farm animals, sheep. It was a revenge thing."

Most service members who speak out are not given the same treatment that Ronn Cantu is enjoying. Like Cantu, Former Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden signed the Appeal for Redress, an online petition to Congress from active-duty service members demanding an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

After co-founding the appeal, Madden began holding workshops about the politics of the war on his base at Quantico, Va., bringing down the wrath of his chain of command.

"Basically, they just gave me lousy jobs and told all my peers they were not allowed to talk to Sergeant Madden," he said. "It was a pretty lonely time."

"All the peers that I had met and become acquainted with were basically shut off and if any of them were to talk with me in the barracks or off duty, they were very nervous about it," he added.

Many observers believe the Army is unable to effectively punish Soldiers such as Cantu and Madden because it's close to its breaking point. Last month, top Army officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is under serious strain and must reduce the length of combat tours as soon as possible.

Gen. George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, said, "The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance."

read more at Military.com

General Petraeus testimony; 8 in our Sgt H. Styker Brigade killed in Iraq; An Irresponsible Plan

2008-04-14T08:06:00.003-07:00

Dear Readers, those of you who have been following along since 2003, the saga in our military family, know that my daughter's husband is in his second deployment to Iraq. He left for Iraq in Dec 07, and since only December, eight in his brigade have been killed in Iraq.

I'd say the violence in Iraq is in no way on the decline, and clearly the Surge is not clearing up the violence. You heard of the recent attacks on the 'safe' Green Zone in Baghdad and the attack on Basra even while General Petraeus was giving his testimony to Congress last week? My son-in-law was on convoy two weeks ago when an IED exploded near his vehicle - violence already was escalating.

Military peacekeeping is not keeping the peace. That should come as no surprise, since the military are not peacekeepers. Lacking a vigorous diplomatic process in Iraq, it is similarly not surprising that reconciliation is making seemingly little progress. But what remains a constant is that our troops continue to be killed or so devastatingly wounded as to be unable to return to anything resembling normalcy.

And of course,even while our troops die or are damaged, it goes without saying that the daily carnage of Iraqi lives snuffed out continues. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd - under the umbrella of Iraq, a nation forced into democracy whether they want it or not - it is nonetheless Iraqi lives by the tens and hundreds daily that are snuffed out in Iraq.

As our military is squandered mercilessly in the 'mission accomplished' in Iraq, trouble is brewing in Afghanistan along the Pakistan border. As pointed out by more than one Senator at the Petraeus testimony last week,Iraq welcomes Iran emmissary, knowing Iran is a dangerous neighbor to be respected and in close proximity, while the President of the United States seems only to be able to sneak into Iraq for tenative visits, under cover of night and certainly with little welcome fanfare. This Administration has the audacity to believe it can navigate and mitigate with a simplistic cowboy mentality the complex relationships in the countries that make up the Middle East.

But General Petraeus did define his sense of our military mission in Iraq = 'for our national security interests of economic stability in the region'. Read that again - security interests of economic stablity means what? Did you guess oil? Their oil, our economic stability.

While General Petraeus is trying to define for Congress the impossible - stating the ever changing mission in Iraq, Admiral Mullen recently 'retired' after making it known to the President that he would not lead an invasion into Iran. Earlier there was the retirement of General Casey whom General Petraeus replaced after General Casey began to hint that the impossible mission in Iraq was depleting our U.S. military beyond it's limits.

Even while General Petraeus was giving his testimony to the Senate last Tuesday, Basra was under attack. In a telling message that would be wise to heed, note that 1,000 trained Iraqi military and police personnel abandoned their stations in recent attacks, some even turning over U.S. provided vehicles and weapons to the attackers. I can't help but wonder what that does to the U.S. troops that General Petraeus says are serving more in advisory roles than carrying out the military maneuvers. I'd say it leaves the U.S. troops to be unnecessary and handy targets, subject to their very own equipment and weapons being used against them.

This isn't the first time the 'trained' Iraqi military and/or police have fled. Do you remember hearing the news in 2005 and 2006 that there were six Iraqi battalions trained and ready, and then we heard, no make that four, no make that two, no make that none.

There is a pattern to my mind that is a telling message. It does not matter how long U.S. troops remain in Iraq, pulling them out now, 5 years, 10 years, or even 100 years from now, the pattern of the culture of what comprises the Iraqi nation was long habitual before this country and it's democracy was even a glint or hint of an idea.

I would further remind readers that our military demands of an 18 year old in the United States, fresh out of high school, that he or she be trained and ready for combat in Iraq in 6-8 weeks, depending on branch of military service. I would think it reasonable to expect no less of Iraqis training for military, and certainly five years is an adequate time. It does seem the Iraqi message is not unclear to the U.S. forces - we are not a welcome or wanted presence there and our young service men and women are dying from our continuing to ignore the message. Ignorance is NOT bliss, my friends.

Even if it isn't directly impacting you with loved ones deployed, it is costing you a robust economy in your homeland, and it is costing you the loss of a valuable commodity in having a well-trained military, at the ready and able to defend your homeland. It is not a good idea to deplete and exhaust the only military we have when we have potential threats in more than one direction.

This all-volunteer military has been pushed beyond exhaustion, with repeat deployments in futile combat in a now sovereign nation intent on building it's own nation the way it sees fit, and if that includes civil war between factions, so be it. Who told the U.S. it could not have a civil war at a time when we were defining our own sovereign nation?

This morning I read a brief article online from a Middle East publication that indicates that Prime Minister Malaki is turning out to be a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein, and has killed more of his own people in his short rule than in ten years of Saddam in power. I can't say if that is or isn't true, and may be it is propaganda, but it is getting difficult to sort through all the propaganda, since that seems to be mostly what we get here in the U.S. as well. What is truth on the ground in Iraq - as I understand it, we have no media reporters in Iraq to give us up close reporting.

As the mission in Iraq has changed and evolved much since the 2003 invasion, and the declared mission accomplished, the talking points have evolved little and remain grounded in the concept of fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. And most recently the added pride factor of 'victory' - undefined, but we are to have victory nonetheless. How smart is that strategy - an undefined and impermeable victory undefined by the basic whom, when, what, how, why questions?

Meanwhile, Presidential contender, a military man himself, Senator John McCain doesn't seem to be sure where Al Quaeda is -- where the 'terrorists' are which instills in me no comfort that our troops are fighting them there so they don't have to fight them here, and assuredly no comfort that said troops should be led by another Commander-in-Chief who does not have a basis in the reality of what or who is the enemy or why they are an enemy, much less where they are in the Middle East.

Think about that for a moment though,if 'they' (terrorists) did come here, we have no ready troops to be fighting them here, and if we use up, exhaust and deplete our troops over there (which we have pretty much done already) so we don't have to fight them here, what do we do when there are no U.S. troops left to fight them over there and 'they' (the terrorists), which continue to reconstitute, are still out there. It is not a well reasoned thought process. I appreciated how Senator Obama attempted to ask General Petraeus what would constitute a satisfactory resolution - (paraphrasing here) -- what would be the defining meaning of victory - when there are no more terrorists left or x number of terrorist left? What if, although acknowledging it is messy now, if where we are at now with Iraq, is victory - would we know it if we saw it?

This week Congress will be voting on whether to give President Bush another round of huge millions to sustain our troops in Iraq. This back door budget of asking for a supplemental budget for the 'sake of our troops' is a political maneuver, not unfamiliar to our Congress. Since General Petraeus has done his duty and given his report to Congress with two days of testimony last week, now it falls to Congress to do their job and make decisions on what General Petraeus had to report. Is there strong enough reason to continue to keep our troops in Iraq? Is there strong enough reason to employ another strategy, bring them home and rather than fear the worst in Iraq, give them (Iraq) the opportunity they have asked for to work it out themselves.
We well know that the President has made his decision to continue to keep troops in Iraq with no changes in the Iraq war, to dump this live war into the next President's lap; and should that future President pull troops out with all the touted catastrophic results come to pass, it would be blame for the next President and his/her party.

There are two things wrong with that reasoning:

1) It assumes there would be catastrophic results, which, as of yet, no one seems able to define for me - what that means - what exactly would be catastrophic or what would that look like and how would it be different than what is already catastrophic genocide in Iraq because of U.S. actions to invade and occupy?

2) Is partisan politics more relevant and important than the lives and dollars it is costing to keep us in Iraq? I don't give a hang about supposedly 'smart political strategies or tactics' , as thus far those citing them as smart don't seem to know just how smart or flat out dumb said strategies and tactics are. So far the strategies and tactics used by either party have served only to perpetuate the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the politicians we elect and paydoing the jobs we entrust them to do - especiallywith the treasure and lives of our young.

Locally, here in Washington, a contender for U.S. Representative in 8th District, Darcy Burner, has come up with what she terms a responsible plan for getting troops out of Iraq. I had the opportunity to read it the day before it was published online to her website. This plan was put together with the help and advice of General Paul Eaton, and General Wesley Clark,and it is responsible - no question about that ... a responsible way to keep the war ongoing in Iraq until specifications cited in the plan have been met and no timeline or deadline has been set in the plan as to when the troops could come home.

I'm not so sure who it is responsible to, but it does seem to be a moral imperative to repair some of the damage done by sending U.S. troops into Iraq. I'm not sure it is the military troops who need now to do nation building, but yes, we do have some moral imperatives to rectify the damage - just not sure why or even if it is the troops who have the responsibility.

For us, for our family, for our daughter and grandchildren and for our son in law, Sgt H.,home on leave and returning to Iraq to finish out his second extended, stop loss deployment,right to that 'hot spot' that is occurring now in Bagdhad area, this plan is no more responsible than any other plan that has been put forth to date inasmuch as it seems just more political posturing using the excuse of the Iraq war.

And closer to home, in our own 19th LD, our own U.S. Congressman Brian Baird, decided to support the Surge last summer,and when my husband asked him face to face, man to man, if our son's life was worth it, Congressman Baird, said that while we might not like his answer, 'yes, he did believe our son's life was worth it'. (In fairness, he added that he would give his life for it and that of his two sons -- who are only 2 yrs old).

I wonder if Congressman Baird is considering the lives lost since he made that statement to us. And I would call to his attention that eight (8) from our son-in-law's Stryker Brigade have been killed in Iraq since son-in-law deployed to Iraq in December 07. We do pray earnestly that Baird's faith in this surge and in a U.S. committment to remain in Iraq will not be at the expense of our son's life. We assuredly wouldn't want it to be at the expense of his own sons' lives.

This month, April, our two U.S. Senators and our U.S. Representatives will have an opportunity to do the right thing, the courageous thing, an action of valor, and end this war right now. They can vote no to a supplemental budget to spend more money to keep our troops in Iraq. Our son-in-law along with all the troops have done their jobs, General Petraeus has done his, and the Commander-in-Chief has spoken his intent to continue as is the war in Iraq.

And now, once again, Congress has the opportunity to do it's job, to do the right thing, to make the decision that will bring and end to the war in Iraq now. General Petraeus is not in command of Congress and can only make recommendations. President Bush is not in command of Congress and has made his recommendations. Congress can now be in command ofitself and step up to the plate with this vote. To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities towhich they were elected .. it's been five years, and this argument takes on new meaning after five years in light of the cost of lives, dollars and the fate of our depleted military to our national security interests.

I am told that there does remain funds already in the pipeline to get the troops out of Iraq - responsibly. Voting no on the supplemental permits that already established pipeline money to go to work to get the troops out and bring them home Now. Bringing the troops home now IS the responsible thing to do.

Hillary Cllinton Owns Iraq War; Video March 6, 2003 - in her own words

2008-03-03T10:12:00.006-08:00

Having a first hand investment in needing to know why the 2 in our family were deployed to Iraq, I tend not to forget that Hillary Clinton voted for the Resolution to invade Iraq. Hear her in her own words in the video below.

Okay, so that was five years ago and many who voted for invading Iraq now suffer with buyer's remorse. Not Hillary Clinton though. She has not, to my knowledge, taken responsibility for the incredulous damage caused by the collective 'yes' votes from Congress to invade and occupy Iraq; her own yes vote included.

She has done a good job of pointing to the Bush Administration and justifiably, but when she uses that ploy to point the finger away from herself, I don't find it an act of courage, nor do I find it ethical, nor do I appreciate it as necessary politicking ... in this case politicking with the lives of our loved ones, and with the lives of Iraqi families who had little to do with the event of 911. I find Hillary's tactics as more of the same in that it is politics as usual, and I believe those who have and will die by the votes and actions of our politicians deserve more humane political
consideration.

One of the very reasons why I am more inclined to want to see what Barack Obama has to offer in leading this country back from the brink, is because I've already seen what Hillary Clinton has to offer. The respect I have held for John McCain remains, and it is in the past tense now for his military service to our country for which he will always deserve respect. He seems though, to have lost his way along the course of the years. There is no such thing as winning or victory in Iraq, and to hold out for that end is beyond foolhardy.

The Bush Administration will always deserve the core brunt of disdain for what they have done in Iraq and thereby rendered our standing in the world as foolishly impudent. The American citizens who weren't sent to fight in combat are feeling the effects of the trade offs in the cost of the Iraq war costing a destabilized economy at home.

See the video below, and into the video at the 6:30 time mark begin Hillary's comments. Hat tip to the Daily Kos diary where this video is posted and please read more there. I felt very compelled to bring the video here to this blog because our family has such a personal stake.

Iraq War Vet, Bobby Wise, Speaks on why he supports Obama

2008-02-24T14:22:00.004-08:00

You haven't heard these reasons before, and it assuredly speaks to the passion I know to be true among our troops. Please wait while the video loads

see more here

Defacing the marine's grave, pummelling the father, military families of all stripes deserve more respect

2008-01-05T15:12:00.000-08:00

Where does this kind of vitriol come from and what satisfaction can be gained or statement made from the act of vandalizing the young marine's gravesite because said young marine's father dares to protest the 'death by Iraq' of his son?

From Amy Branham's blog entry reporting on the incident, Amy, herself being a Gold Star mother:

Walpole, Massachusetts – In a Boston suburb, vandals defaced the gravestone of a 20-year-old Marine who lost his life to a sniper’s bullet while on his second tour of duty on Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, USMC was laid to rest on September 4, 2004 in Rural Cemetery located in Walpole, Massachusetts, and the site of a family-owned plot. "The vandalism took place sometime prior to September 28th", according to Carlos Arredondo, Alex’s father who last visited the gravesite days before.

Arredondo Senior frequently visits the cemetery to keep his son’s plot decorated and neat. On Sunday, October 28th, 2007 an Iraqi American doctor, a videographer and two Viet Nam war veterans requested that Carlos and his wife, Mélida lead them to a visit to Rural Cemetery to pay homage to Alex. "All of us were stunned and saddened by this act of desecration," stated Mélida Arredondo.

The Walpole police department was called immediately and a report was filed. Carlos and his son Brian Arredondo returned to the gravesite the following day to clean the tombstone and to sand the scratches out of the granite. The pictures above were taken prior to cleaning. If you have information on this matter, please contact the Walpole Police Department at (508) 668-1095 or by sending an email to info@walpolepd.com.

Alex, as friends and family called him, was 20 years and 20 days old when he was killed while part of the siege in An Najaf, Iraq on 08/25/04.

A second troop who was killed while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom is also buried at Rural Cemetery. No sign of vandalism or disturbance was noted at that or any other gravesite.

This certainly seems to be yet another swipe at Lance Corporal Alexander Arredondo's family, particularly his father Carlos Arrendondo, who has in the years since the death of his son become a familiar figure at activist events protesting the war in Iraq around the country. Carlos paid a visit to us here in Washington state early in 2007. Carlos brought with him the memorial to his son he brings with him to these public events when he came to the U.S. Army base of Fort Lewis in Tacoma, WA last year to stand in support during the first court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada.

I met Carlos in Washington DC in Sept 2005 at the culmination of the Bring Them Home Now tour. I had not met him prior to that, but I knew of him, due to the compelling news story of his actions upon learning the news of the death of his son. It was one of the stories I blogged here, 'His Scream' at this blog in August 2004.

-- The three Marines showed up at Arredondo's home to inform the family that Lance Cpl. Alexander Arredondo, 20, had died Tuesday in Najaf. What happened next shocked the Marines and Arredondo's neighbors. After getting the news, Carlos Arredondo walked into the garage, picked up a propane tank, a lighting device and a can of gasoline. He then proceeded to set the Marines' van ablaze while he was inside. --

Meeting Carlos for the first time was a humbling experience for me. With the dawning of recognition that this was the same man I'd read about among those early news stories of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, it was an honor to meet him in person. His manner was quiet, yet very focused. His mission was clear, he intended that the death of his son not go unacknowledged or for that matter, unchallenged. He quietly thanked me for my questions and concern about his own healing from having set himself on fire back in 2004. He then showed me the hundreds of copies of a letter from his son that he was making available at the cross that was to represent his son in the Arlington display of crosses erected at the DC site of the 2005 protest march.

At that time Cindy Sheehan had gained media attention with her vigil at Crawford, followed by the 4 week Bring Them Home Now Tour from Crawford to Washington DC to join with the hundreds of thousands who came to protest war in Iraq that weekend of Sept 24, 2005. Having participated at the vigil in Crawford in the beginning of that month long vigil, and having then joined the bus on the BTHN tour, I had by that time met many of the Gold Star families. I was finding it was increasingly more difficult to find ways to contain the empathy I felt in my exposure to that much grieving. There were times I thought my heart would explode, and I had to find ways to move back into my head and out of my feelings. The two in our family who had been deployed in Iraq had returned, and I was beginning to feel the weight of 'survivor guilt' in the disparity between having returning loved ones while these families would not ever again see their loved ones return.

Meeting Carlos put me back in the frame of mind of why military families - especially - even more so than non-military families, need to support other military families, no matter their positions on Iraq war. It is an extension of the principle of what it means to be a community of military families. When one talks to Carlos, one feels the form and shape of his grief, more than hears the words he attempts to share. It is not possible or likely to leave a conversation with him without feeling the decency of empathy and compassion he deserves, he and his family. Even with the polarized and entrenched variances of viewpoints on invasion and occupation of Iraq as response to a threat of terror, there remains room for the reality that military families face singularly and apart from the rest of Americans who do not have loved ones deployed in Iraq. When it gets down to real people rather than airy, abstract, political rhetoric and talking points, Carlos experience of the loss of his son is a clear demonstration of how real it can get.

That is why it is difficult for me to understand at all why we have people in this country, who of their own free will, deliberately look for ways to throw stones at Carlos choices for expressing his grief. I read in Sept 2007, how grown men representing an organization calling itself "Gathering of Eagles" rendered destruction on Carlos memorial to his son, ripping the photograph of his son from him, accelerating to pummelling Carlos to the ground. And with Amy's report at her blog, I now read that in Oct 2007, someone or some people thought to vandalize the gravesite memorial of Lance Corporal Alexander Arrendondo which can have no effective message except that of bringing further distress to his family.

America, land of freedoms, and not a certain amount of cruelty when it comes to compassionate empathy. If it could be explained to me how Carlos manifestation of his grief somehow hurts, interferes with or threatens others....

I can't help but get the juxtaposed images I remember of actions of Ku Klux Klan when I was a young child, in a military family returning home from overseas to a military base in Mississippi - a kind of welcome to your home country of America. Somehow I get a sense and visual of this example of the action of 'Gathering of the Eagles' as a modern day version of tactics used by the old KKK. Carlos deserves the common decency of respect while he grieves publicly for his son and the sacrifice of his son's life and making meaning of that sacrifice. Why is that so difficult for American's to comprehend, I wonder.

Two little ones with their deployment bears

2007-11-17T18:37:00.000-08:00

Daddy's little girl dissolves into tears knowing it is real Daddy is leaving this weekend.

Making deployment bears for the little ones the night before Daddy deploys to Iraq. I have said my goodbyes to my son-in-law, but words totally fail me as I find I don't know what to say to him on this, his second deployment to Iraq. There aren't words to express and the photo of his 2 younger children says what I can't find words to say to him, to my daughter, to my grandchildren. I am humbled by the dignity with which they are having to manage two deployments.

post from their mother, on the night before their father leaves for his second deployment to Iraq:

Last night we went to the xxxx Mall and let the kids make a build a deployment bear. They dressed them in Army outfits. Hubby went to the back room at the store and recorded his voice so they could put his recording in each of the kids bears. After he was finished making the recordings she put each of them into the kids bears arms, stuffed them and then the kids grabbed hearts to put into their bears.

But it was very very neat because my husband also took two hearts and together the kids and my hubby
rubbed the hearts to warm them up,
patted them to get the hearts beating,
touched their forehead to make the bears smart,
touched their noses so the bears would know them,
touched their knees so the bears would need them,
touched their muscles so their bears would be strong,
and touched their hearts so their bears would love them,
then each of them kissed their hearts and put them into the bears.

It was so adorable because there was my hubby standing with the kids saying and doing everything the girl said to do with the hearts. Now the kids have hearts in their bears right besides daddy's heart.

Daddy told him he is the man of the house while Daddy is gone. Is his son's expression wondering how he will live up to being the man of the house.

Two little ones trying so hard to be brave for Daddy, and now it is real for them with these deployment bears that he is leaving for Iraq this weekend.

Iraq war has me down; in another venue doing something positive to counter the malaise

2007-11-11T09:02:00.000-08:00

Not the usual kind of content or material that I post to my Dying to Preserve the Lies blog. I have other blogs for other elements of my life, and sometimes there is a cross-over. Somehow, I think the post I'm sharing here is a crossover -- well, for me, and where I am with myself after 5 years of activism in trying to bring conclusive end to Iraq war. I'm activism weary, war-weary, military family weary, and in trying to resume areas of our lives that I've let drift in my activism intensity, I am reminded of old teachings about the need for balance in our lives in order to have the stamina, strength to pursue with passion the things we love.

Well, I surely don't love anything about the Iraq war, and I grow disheartened with the repetition in the activism activities seemingly not getting any better results in year 5 than in year 1 of the Iraq war. I never much liked politics and these days like it even less and yet politics governs aspects of our daily lives in powerful ways, that ignoring the fact of politics is perhaps why we find ourselves as a country and nation where we are now.

But in the feeling of defeat that direct activism, direct head on activism to end Iraq war, to get out troops home has not brought about that result, I am in need of finding things I can do that bring about positive influence. Being a young wife and mother in the 1970's, I appreciated the back to earth living principles of that time that are revived in 2000 with a whole new look - sustainable living. Before it was called sustainable living in reaction to global climate warming, it was known by other names; homesteading, spirit of independence within community, simplistic living, abundant living, meaningful living, reductionism, communes, living off the grid, communities caring for each other, self sufficiency and/or any other labels by which the lifestyle is called.

Before 2001, before this country's Administration decided to invade Iraq, I was on my own path towards reviving some of those old skills while we tried to fly in the face of the norm by reducing to a one-income household. And along the way, we kept up with that goal, but only with my half-hearted attention and not half the measure of the intensity and focus I was giving to my calling as a military family to speak out in opposition to Iraq war as exploitive of the principles our military holds dear.

My son-in-law says goodbye to his wife and children (my daughter and three grandchildren) to leave next week for his second deployment to Iraq. It will be another extended 'stop-loss' 15 month deployment for him. It is being whispered that it will be an 18 month deployment, a rumor prospect that once he and his unit arrive in Iraq, another 3 month extension, 'stop-loss' will be added on top of the already 15 month stop-loss deployment. I feel a deep sense of personal failure, a difficult sense of futility in not being able to do enough or the right kinds of things that would have prevented he and all the troops from having to do repeat deployments.

Out of that sense of futility, I find myself uninspired to participate with any of the planned 'anti-war' activist projects. I recognize this is not a good place to be with myself, personally. I also recognize that one of the strategies that does seem to be working in holding the supposed 'anti-war' movement in check is that activist will tire and get weary and lose stamina, lose intensity, lose focus, lose heart.

Much as I'd love to see a nationwide 'Consumer Strike' where no one purchased anything for a week or more; or everyone didn't go to work for several days; or everyone got out into the streets to express their concern with the multitude of current issues that are breaking down our country; or my deep concern that a military draft will have to be introduced at some point bringing about the furor of concerned parents and a military draft is not something I want to see but given that the current military is spent and exhausted and no end in sight to war in the Middle East.....

In turning my attention to some positive kinds of things we can do, with absolute results, I post the below as part of my own respite. How does this help ---- well for one thing it suggests in positive ways how to create and build community - commonality - communities caring for each other and looking out for each other, the foundation stones of stewardship for caring for our very home on this planet. Stewardship, caring, actively engaging --- all these are principles that, I like to think, can unite us towards life-giving pursuits, detouring us from this path of fostering hate-mongering and destructive pursuits.

Doing Something Positive - The Urban Pioneers are doing it, so can we!

Excellent video encapsulating wide array of concepts in Sustainable Living. These Urban Pioneers got a jumpstart back when it was called self-sufficiency- meaningful living, abundant living, simplistic living, getting off the grid. And they go even further back ... see the video below. Big hat tip to Path To Freedom Journal blog.

from the Path to Freedom Journal blog 'about us'
On 1/5th of an acre, this family has over 350 varieties of edible and useful plants. The homestead's productive 1/10 acre organic garden now grows over 6,000 pounds (3 tons) of organic produce annually,providing fresh vegetables and fruit for the family’s vegetarian diet along with a viable income.

In addition they have chickens, ducks, goats, brew their own biodiesel (made from waste (free!) vegetable oil) to fuel their car, compost with worms, solar panels provide their electricity needs, a sun and earthen oven is used to cook food in.

'No End in Sight'

2007-11-06T10:10:00.000-08:00

No End In Sight - documentary about the war in Iraq; the (deliberate? careless? ignorant?) incompetence of those who started and managed it.

Placing here because it gives a useful historical context. So much has happened in 5 years, so many outrages, so much disassembling of our Constitution, so many bait and switch crisis issues, and so much effort at 'normalizing' the concept of the United States at war in Iraq as a block of many blocks in the supposed 'war against terror' in the Middle East over the next decade, over the next 50 years. Doesn't hurt to remind ourselves of the history from time to time of the original invasion into Iraq and the amazing inconguities that took place and continues to be in place...

A.F. General Michael Hayden, CIA Director banned Waterboarding as torture.

2007-11-06T09:26:00.000-08:00

Officially, the administration backed off the so-called torture memo, though reports that waterboarding continued to be used have persisted. In September (2005), ABC News reported that Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officially banned the use of waterboarding.

read more at Military.com

Army Chief of Staff, General Shalikashvili says Waterboarding against Geneva Conventions

2007-11-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

In 2005 a dozen retired general and flag officers wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee over the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to head the Justice Department. Gonzales, the former White House counsel, was linked to the so-called torture memo that effectively loosened the rules on interrogation and deemed that enemy combatants did not fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

But the retired generals and admirals, among them retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili, slammed the policy.

"The United States commitment to the Geneva Conventions the laws of war flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided," the group wrote. "We have learned first hand the value of adhering to the Geneva Conventions and practicing what we preach on the international stage."

Officially, the administration backed off the so-called torture memo, though reports that waterboarding continued to be used have persisted. In September, ABC News reported that Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officially banned the use of waterboarding.

Now the practice is back in the debate, as senators initially seemed poised to approve Mukasey with all haste. But his response to questions about waterboarding has prompted some committee members to raise serious concerns, and has thrown his nomination in doubt.

read more at Military.com

Waterboarding - It's Torture - Intelligence Consultant Homeland Security, Malcolm Nance -

2007-11-06T09:16:00.000-08:00

While the Senate Judiciary Committee and U.S. Attorney General nominee Judge Michael Mukasey go around and around over the question of waterboarding and whether it constitutes torture, a man who has been there and done that has spoken out against the practice.

It's torture, says Malcolm Nance, a counter-terrorism and intelligence consultant for the special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies. Nance, writing for the Small Wars Journal website, called the debate over waterboarding "a crisis of honor."

And accepting it as a tool for interrogation, he says, does the United States no honor.

"As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego ... I know the waterboard personally and intimately," he wrote. "I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people."

SERE, he wrote, is designed to show how "an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique."

Nance is among the latest, but not the first, former American service member to rap waterboarding and other aggressive questioning methods, which the administration calls enhanced interrogation techniques.

read more at Military.com

Waterboarding IS torture - Daniel Levin, former Asst. Attny General - submitted to being waterboarded and pronuonced it Torture

2007-11-06T08:41:00.001-08:00

Waterboarding IS torture - Daniel Levin, former Acting Asst. Attorney General had himself waterboarded - he would know.

Special Comment: On waterboarding and torture

Transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/
MSNBC video
Special Comment: On waterboarding and torture
Nov. 5: Keith Olbermann comments on Pres. Bush and Michael Mukasey’s
response to allegations of waterboarding in the Bush administration. Why
was an Acting Assistant Attorney General forced out – just because he had
the guts to do what Pres. Bush couldn't?

TRANSCRIPT:

The presidency is now a criminal conspiracy

Olbermann: Bush may not observe the rules, but the country abides by them

It is a fact startling in its cynical simplicity and it requires cynical
and simple words to be properly expressed: The presidency of George W.
Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of
George W. Bush.

All the petulancy, all the childish threats, all the blank-stare
stupidity; all the invocations of World War III, all the sophistic
questions about which terrorist attacks we wanted him not to stop, all the
phony secrets; all the claims of executive privilege, all the stumbling
tap-dancing of his nominees, all the verbal flatulence of his
apologists...

All of it is now, after one revelation last week, transparently clear for
what it is: the pathetic and desperate manipulation of the government, the
refocusing of our entire nation, toward keeping this mock president and
this unstable vice president and this departed wildly self-overrating
attorney general, and the others, from potential prosecution for having
approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the
name of this country.

"Waterboarding is torture," Daniel Levin was to write. Daniel Levin was no
theorist and no protester. He was no troublemaking politician. He was no
table-pounding commentator. Daniel Levin was an astonishingly patriotic
American and a brave man.

Brave not just with words or with stances, even in a dark time when that
kind of bravery can usually be scared or bought off.

Charged, as you heard in the story from ABC News last Friday, with
assessing the relative legality of the various nightmares in the Pandora's
box that is the Orwell-worthy euphemism "Enhanced Interrogation," Mr.
Levin decided that the simplest, and the most honest, way to evaluate them
... was to have them enacted upon himself.

Daniel Levin took himself to a military base and let himself be waterboarded.

Mr. Bush, ever done anything that personally courageous?

Perhaps when you've gone to Walter Reed and teared up over the maimed
servicemen? And then gone back to the White House and determined that
there would be more maimed servicemen?

Has it been that kind of personal courage, Mr. Bush, when you've spoken of
American victims and the triumph of freedom and the sacrifice of your own
popularity for the sake of our safety? And then permitted others to fire
or discredit or destroy anybody who disagreed with you, whether they were
your own generals, or Max Cleland, or Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, or
Daniel Levin?

Daniel Levin should have a statue in his honor in Washington right now.

Instead, he was forced out as acting assistant attorney general nearly
three years ago because he had the guts to do what George Bush couldn't do
in a million years: actually put himself at risk for the sake of his
country, for the sake of what is right.

And they waterboarded him. And he wrote that even though he knew those
doing it meant him no harm, and he knew they would rescue him at the
instant of the slightest distress, and he knew he would not die — still,
with all that reassurance, he could not stop the terror screaming from
inside of him, could not quell the horror, could not convince that which
is at the core of each of us, the entity who exists behind all the
embellishments we strap to ourselves, like purpose and name and family and
love, he could not convince his being that he wasn't drowning.

Waterboarding, he said, is torture. Legally, it is torture! Practically,
it is torture! Ethically, it is torture! And he wrote it down.

Wrote it down somewhere, where it could be contrasted with the words of
this country's 43rd president: "The United States of America ... does not
torture."

Made you into a liar, Mr. Bush.

Made you into, if anybody had the guts to pursue it, a criminal, Mr. Bush.

Waterboarding had already been used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and a couple
of other men none of us really care about except for the one detail you'd
forgotten — that there are rules. And even if we just make up these rules,
this country observes them anyway, because we're Americans and we're
better than that.

We're better than you.

And the man your Justice Department selected to decide whether or not
waterboarding was torture had decided, and not in some phony academic
fashion, nor while wearing the Walter Mitty poseur attire of flight suit
and helmet.

He had put his money, Mr. Bush, where your mouth was.

So, Levin was fired.

Because if it ever got out what he'd concluded, and the lengths to which
he went to validate that conclusion, anybody who had sanctioned
waterboarding and who-knows-what-else on anybody, you yourself, you would
have been screwed.

And screwed you are.

It can't be coincidence that the story of Daniel Levin should emerge from
the black hole of this secret society of a presidency just at the
conclusion of the unhappy saga of the newest attorney general nominee.

Another patriot somewhere listened as Judge Mukasey mumbled like he'd
never heard of waterboarding and refused to answer in words … that which
Daniel Levin answered on a waterboard somewhere in Maryland or Virginia
three years ago.

And this someone also heard George Bush say, "The United States of America
does not torture," and realized either he was lying or this wasn't the
United States of America anymore, and either way, he needed to do
something about it.

Not in the way Levin needed to do something about it, but in a brave way
nonetheless.

We have U.S. senators who need to do something about it, too.

Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee has seen this for what it is and
said "enough."

Sen. Schumer has seen it, reportedly, as some kind of puzzle piece in the
New York political patronage system, and he has failed.

What Sen. Feinstein has seen, to justify joining Schumer in
rubber-stamping Mukasey, I cannot guess.

It is obvious that both those senators should look to the meaning of the
story of Daniel Levin and recant their support for Mukasey's confirmation.

And they should look into their own committee's history and recall that in
1973, their predecessors were able to wring even from Richard Nixon a
guarantee of a special prosecutor (ultimately a special prosecutor of
Richard Nixon!), in exchange for their approval of his new attorney
general, Elliott Richardson.

If they could get that out of Nixon, before you confirm the president's
latest human echo on Tuesday, you had better be able to get a "yes" or a
"no" out of Michael Mukasey.

Ideally you should lock this government down financially until a special
prosecutor is appointed, or 50 of them, but I'm not holding my breath. The
"yes" or the "no" on waterboarding will have to suffice.

Because, remember, if you can't get it, or you won't with the time between
tonight and the next presidential election likely to be the longest year
of our lives, you are leaving this country, and all of us, to the
waterboards, symbolic and otherwise, of George W. Bush.

Ultimately, Mr. Bush, the real question isn't who approved the
waterboarding of this fiend Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two others.

It is: Why were they waterboarded?

Study after study for generation after generation has confirmed that
torture gets people to talk, torture gets people to plead, torture gets
people to break, but torture does not get them to tell the truth.

Of course, Mr. Bush, this isn't a problem if you don't care if the
terrorist plots they tell you about are the truth or just something to
stop the tormentors from drowning them.

If, say, a president simply needed a constant supply of terrorist threats
to keep a country scared.

Kris Kristofferson, Military Brat, Army Helicopter Pilot, son of a General, Rhodes Scholar --- 'In The News'

2007-11-03T19:58:00.000-07:00

Another military brat bringing his message and views via what he is known for - his songs. I say another military brat, because I am a military brat, an Air Force Brat. I learned that Kris Kristofferson is a military brat, AF brat, when I learned of the dvd 'Brats - Our Journey Home' and that Kris Kristofferson was the narrator. I own the dvd, and find it most compelling, giving me, as a military brat, reconciliation, affirmation and healing. But I digress some because the point of this post is to share what Kris Kristofferson has to say via his song, via youtube video below.

Kris Kristofferson was born in Brownsville, Texas. Like most military brats he moved around much as a youth; he finally settled down in San Mateo, California, where he graduated from San Mateo High School. Kristofferson's father was an Air Force general who pushed his son toward a military career .....

BRATS: Our Journey Home

An Intimate Portrait of a Lost American Tribe
narrated by Air Force brat Kris Kristofferson

Kris Kristofferson, Narrator
Air Force BRAT, former Army helicopter pilot, Rhodes Scholar, Golden Gloves boxer, This Old Road, The Highwaymen, Lone Star, A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries, A Star is Born

* "Most people have a place they think of as home all their lives. But for some, home is not a place, it's a state of mind."

Kris Kristofferson, another mil brat speaking out.
Hat tip to a friend of mine for sharing the video at her On The Homefront blog.

Harvey Tharp, former Navy Lt, Iraq veteran - Why The Army is running scared in court martials (An analysis of the Watada and Israel War Resister cas

2007-11-03T19:23:00.000-07:00

Harvey Tharp, Navy Lt. who resigned his Commission, provides an analysis well worth considering. And with that, I'll leave a link to his blog and not try give an analysis via harvesting his analysis.

Harvey Tharp was one of several Iraq veterans who were invited and came to Washington state to give testimony in support of Lt. Watada at Citizen's Hearing.

Harvey Tharp's PTSD and Bipolar Recovery Blog: WHY THE ARMY IS RUNNING SCARED IN COURTS MARTIAL (An analysis of the Watada and Israel War Resister cases)

YouTube - Bill Moyers on October 2007 Anti-Iraq War Demostrations

2007-11-03T09:14:00.000-07:00

YouTube - Bill Moyers on October 2007 Anti-IraqWar Demostrations - 5 years after Iraq invasion - where's the outrage? Who is in the streets? Why nil media coverage? Why is it unimportant?

Army Officers at Fort Leavenworth Soul Searching over Iraq; Should the war have been fought?

2007-10-14T09:23:00.000-07:00

Article in New York Times today, which caught my attention for the obvious reasons. I am pleased to see young Army Officers having the discussion. And I appreciated the article. I was struck as I was reading it that it referenced an article by Lt. Col Paul Yingling.

Much of the debate at Leavenworth has centered on a scathing article, “A Failure in Generalship,” written last May for Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran and deputy commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment who holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago. “If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results,” Colonel Yingling wrote.

I was struck by that because I well remember the article by Lt. Col Paul Yingling, blogged it here, and it seemed to me the article received little notice in the public arena, nor among the media that help shape public opinion. So I was pleased and surprised to see the article referenced in today's New York Times article calling attention to how young Army Officers are actually asking themselves the hard questions.

What also struck me though, was a missing element in the discussion. I didn't see mention of the young Army Officers discussing the actions of young Army Officer, Lt. Ehren Watada, who as an Officer of the U.S. Army, did exactly what is cited in today's article at New York Times;

Discussions nonetheless focused on where young officers might draw a “red line,” the point at which they would defy a command from the civilians — the president and the defense secretary — who lead the military.

“We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate,” said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. “How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?”

Lt. Watada, based on his strident training under battalion commander Lt. Colonel Matthew Dawson that as an Officer he had an obligation to knowledgeably discern orders given him. Rising to the challenge of doing the research and upon his researching, Lt. Watada did discern that the Iraq war is illegal and to execute his orders to deploy to Iraq and order soldiers under his command to execute fire support orders would be to execute illegal orders.

Lt. Ehren Watada: ‘Experience Makes You Stronger’

In January 2005, Watada received orders to Fort Lewis, Washington, in anticipation of deployment to Iraq. Watada felt neither frightened nor anxious, but extremely unprepared. “I was detailed to be a fire support officer with an infantry company,” Watada explained.

Watada applied his “insatiable appetite for knowledge” to his future duties in Iraq. He felt it was his obligation and duty as an officer to know what to anticipate. “I did this to better prepare myself and my soldiers. That’s what I was taught in Korea.”

He haunted the Fort Lewis library, which contains an extraordinary number of military documents, archives and databases, and scoured volumes on military history, particularly in Iraq. “I read the history of units that have gone during the initial invasion to gain a broader knowledge of what I could expect,” he said.

For myself, raised what is called affectionately a military brat, for myself, the young military wife of a young husband drafted and sent to combat in Vietnam, and for myself, as the mother-in-law and aunt of two returning Iraq veterans - one who is leaving for Iraq in his second deployment - I am relieved to see that the new young 'volunteer military' Army Officers are having these kinds of discussions, making these kind of decisions and facing up to what are hard questions that should be asked by every freedom loving American - military or civilian. We owe this dialogue, discussion to ourselves. It is so relevant to this and future generations in light of talk of 'long war', 100-year war, urban warfare as the new tenet of military deployments, and repeated revolving door deployments for a volunteer military that does not have enough service men and women to sustain the 'new wars'.

Note also though, comments by Col. Fontenot in the NY Times article because this is indeed a relevant question and very much a part of the discussion. Thus my contention of how this Administration has in less than honorable service to our country so badly exploited the ideals of the military to push so hard as to have all proud American citizens wonder when/if/should military ever be pushed to the brink of having to decide if following through with the rest of the oath they take to defend against enemies foreign - and domestic - would be a consequence American citizens could/would abide or tolerate. Or for that matter advocate for - which, imo, is not something to advocate lightly. I am thankful that military discipline and Constitutional tenets are in place that would make such an action a very, very last resort for the military, preferrably a tactic never to be used at all:

“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

At an Army School for Officers, Blunt Talk About Iraq

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
published Oct 14, 2007

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — Here at the intellectual center of the United States Army, two elite officers were deep in debate at lunch on a recent day over who bore more responsibility for mistakes in Iraq — the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, or the generals who acquiesced to him.

“The secretary of defense is an easy target,” argued one of the officers, Maj. Kareem P. Montague, 34, a Harvard graduate and a commander in the Third Infantry Division, which was the first to reach Baghdad in the 2003 invasion. “It’s easy to pick on the political appointee.”

“But he’s the one that’s responsible,” retorted Maj. Michael J. Zinno, 40, a military planner who worked at the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the former American civilian administration in Iraq.

No, Major Montague shot back, it was more complicated: the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top commanders were part of the decision to send in a small invasion force and not enough troops for the occupation. Only Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who was sidelined after he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, spoke up in public.

“You didn’t hear any of them at the time, other than General Shinseki, screaming, saying that this was untenable,” Major Montague said.

As the war grinds through its fifth year, Fort Leavenworth has become a front line in the military’s tension and soul-searching over Iraq. Here at the base on the bluffs above the Missouri River, once a frontier outpost that was a starting point for the Oregon Trail, rising young officers are on a different journey — an outspoken re-examination of their role in Iraq.

Discussions between a New York Times reporter and dozens of young majors in five Leavenworth classrooms over two days — all unusual for their frankness in an Army that has traditionally presented a facade of solidarity to the outside world — showed a divide in opinion. Officers were split over whether Mr. Rumsfeld, the military leaders or both deserved blame for what they said were the major errors in the war: sending in a small invasion force and failing to plan properly for the occupation.

But the consensus was that not even after Vietnam was the Army’s internal criticism as harsh or the second-guessing so painful, and that airing the arguments on the record, as sanctioned by Leavenworth’s senior commanders, was part of a concerted effort to force change.

“You spend your whole career worrying about the safety of soldiers — let’s do the training right so no one gets injured, let’s make sure no one gets killed, and then you deploy and you’re attending memorial services for 19-year-olds,” said Maj. Niave Knell, 37, who worked in Baghdad to set up an Iraqi highway patrol. “And you have to think about what you did.”

On one level, second-guessing is institutionalized at Leavenworth, home to the Combined Arms Center, a research center that includes the Command and General Staff College for midcareer officers, the School of Advanced Military Studies for the most elite and the Center for Army Lessons Learned, which collects and disseminates battlefield data.

At Leavenworth, officers study Napoleon’s battle plans and Lt. William Calley’s mistakes in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Last year Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the top American commander in Iraq, wrote the Army and Marine Corps’ new Counterinsurgency Field Manual there. The goal at Leavenworth is to adapt the Army to the changing battlefield without repeating the mistakes of the past.

But senior officers say that much of the professional second-guessing has become an emotional exercise for young officers. “Many of them have been affected by people they know who died over there,” said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the Leavenworth commander and the former top spokesman for the American military in Iraq. Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf war and the conflicts in the Balkans and even Somalia, General Caldwell said, “we just never experienced the loss of life like we have here. And when that happens, it becomes very personal. You want to believe that there’s no question your cause is just and that it has the potential to succeed.”

[Just on Friday, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, criticized the administration’s handling of the war as “incompetent” and “catastrophically flawed.”]

Much of the debate at Leavenworth has centered on a scathing article, “A Failure in Generalship,” written last May for Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran and deputy commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment who holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago. “If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results,” Colonel Yingling wrote.

The article has been required class reading at Leavenworth, where young officers debate whether Colonel Yingling was right to question senior commanders who sent junior officers into battle with so few troops.

“Where I was standing on the street corner, at the 14th of July Bridge, yeah, another brigade there would have been great,” said Maj. Jeffrey H. Powell, 37, a company commander who was referring to the bridge in Baghdad he helped secure during the early days of the war.

Major Powell, who was speaking in a class at the School of Advanced Military Studies, has read many of the Iraq books describing the private disagreements over troop levels between Mr. Rumsfeld and the top commanders, who worried that the numbers were too low but went along in the end.

“Sure, I’m a human being, I question the decision-making process,” Major Powell said. Nonetheless, he said, “we don’t get to sit on the top of the turrets of our tanks and complain that nobody planned for this. Our job is to fix it.”

Discussions nonetheless focused on where young officers might draw a “red line,” the point at which they would defy a command from the civilians — the president and the defense secretary — who lead the military.

“We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate,” said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. “How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?”

General Caldwell, who was the top military aide from 2002 to 2004 to the deputy defense secretary at the time, Paul D. Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, would not talk about the meetings he had with Mr. Wolfowitz about the battle plans at the time. “We did have those discussions, and he would engage me on different things, but I’d feel very uncomfortable talking,” General Caldwell said.

Col. Gregory Fontenot, a Leavenworth instructor, said it was typical of young officers to feel that the senior commanders had not spoken up for their interests, and that he had felt the same way when he was their age. But Colonel Fontenot, who commanded a battalion in the Persian Gulf war and a brigade in Bosnia and has since retired, said he questioned whether Americans really wanted a four-star general to stand up publicly and say no to the president of a nation where civilians control the armed forces.

For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?

“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

Some of the young officers were unimpressed by retired officers who spoke up against Mr. Rumsfeld in April 2006. The retired generals had little to lose, they argued, and their words would have mattered more had they been on active duty. “Why didn’t you do that while you were still in uniform?” Maj. James Hardaway, 36, asked.

Yet, Major Hardaway said, General Shinseki had shown there was a great cost, at least under Mr. Rumsfeld. “Evidence shows that when you do do that in uniform, bad things can happen,” he said. “So, it’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?”

Another major said that young officers were engaged in their own revisionist history, and that many had believed the war could be won with Mr. Rumsfeld’s initial invasion force of about 170,000. “Everybody now claims, oh, I knew we were going to be there for five years and it was going to take 400,000 people,” said Maj. Patrick Proctor, 36. “Nobody wants to be the guy who said, ‘Yeah, I thought we could do it.’ But a lot of us did.”

One question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?

“I honestly don’t know how I feel about that,” Major Powell said in a telephone conversation after the discussions at Leavenworth.

“That’s a big, open question,” General Caldwell said after a long pause.

What if Military Ads had Disclaimers like Pharmaceutical Ads?

2007-10-12T10:57:00.000-07:00

glumbert - What if the Military had disclaimers like Pharma Ads?

Democracy - Senator Murray missed it - Darcy Burner saw it - citizens felt it - General Paul Eaton made it real

2007-10-11T13:51:00.000-07:00

My military family friends up there in Seattle area didn't plan it to go the way it went, but it sounds like a lot of the Eastside Democratic fundraiser attendees got a glimpse of democracy in action, courtesy of Maj. General Paul Eaton's instincts. (Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.) General Eaton, was a primary speaker at the fundraiser, along with Keynote speaker, Patty Murray. General Eaton chose to welcome and invite returning Iraq veteran, Josh, to join him rather than dismiss him as Senator Patty Murray has been inclined to do weekly.

It also sounds like Darcy Burner didn't do such a good job either of making a returning Iraq veteran, a veteran Gold Star father, and a veteran father with son deployed to Iraq for a third time feel welcome. I expect more of Darcy, as she is, after all, a military family herself and I expect that time honored military culture courtesy to be extended to other military families and veterans.
Report from my military friend, David, and let me give you the setting. There are four men, veterans and fathers of veterans, in the Tuesday Vigil group who stand vigil every Tuesday at the Federal Court House in Seattle. Others join them, but these four are the core group who are faithfully there every Tuesday, rain or shine.

David - Vietnam veteran and father of son who is now on third deployment in Iraq. Father and son are from Washington state.

Joe Colgan - veteran and father of Lt. Benjamin Colgan, killed in Iraq in 2003. That makes Joe a Gold Star Father. Father and son are from Washington state. from Seattle Times article Among the soldiers is Lt. Ben Colgan, 30, a 1991 graduate of Des Moines' Mount Rainier High School. Colgan was killed by a roadside bomb Nov. 1, 2003, just weeks after he was filmed in Iraq. (war documentary, "Gunner Palace.") instincts. (Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.) General Eaton, was a primary speaker at the fundraiser, along with Keynote speaker, Patty Murray. General Eaton chose to welcome and invite returning Iraq veteran, Josh, to join him rather than dismiss him as Senator Patty Murray has been inclined to do weekly.

Joshua - returning Iraq veteran, Washington state.

Howard - he stays in the background and is a trusted friend to all three, as well as crucial to the organizing the Tuesday Vigil.

They took their Tuesday Vigil to the recent Eastside Democratic fundraiser at the Westin in Bellevue. Below is his email account to me of that event;

Hi All,

It was supposed to be dark and stormy day, but it wasn't. Therefore the turnout was good. I counted 15. The sidewalk traffic is decreasing, however. I did speak with a tourist from England today who discussed P.M. Brown's decision to reduce by half the number of British soldiers in Iraq. She thought it was a good thing. I thought it was a great thing. The British do have a way with understatement.

But there is more. Last Sunday several of us from the group attended the East Side Democratic Fund Raiser and Dinner at the Westin in Bellevue. It seems that Patty Murray was the keynote speaker. The main speaker was General Paul Eaton who retired so he could speak out against the war and Bush's war policy.

We thought that it would be a great opportunity to speak to Murray given that she has dodged us for so long. A generous soul paid for our entrance and dinner. While several of the Tuesday Vigil Group stayed outside in the rain to hold banners, it was decided that Joe, Josh and I would speak when Murray had finished her speech.

Our comments were to address Murray's continued support of the war through her votes on supplemental spending bills while maintaining that she is only supporting the troops but opposing the war. Joe, Josh and I planned to identify our personal stakes in this war then Josh would make the statement.

The speech ended and Murray quickly exited the stage and out of the room not to return. I think she smelled us, or it could have been that we were introduced by the moderator prior to her taking the stage. We found this doubling strange since she spoke so highly of General Eaton but didn't stay to listen to his comments. In any case, she took what will be referred to in the future as "A Murray." This development put a slight kink in the plans.

Darcy Burner then took the stage to introduce General Eaton. When she gave a slight pause, Josh seized the moment, stood and made his statement. God bless the courage of youth. Darcy tried to shut him down by telling him to sit down and she would explain how the war was going to be stopped. Josh, to his credit, did not sit down. He completed what he had to say, then sat down.

The General then took the podium and said that this was what democracy was all about and pointed at Josh, asking him to join him. Josh went to the stage where he saluted the general who returned the salute then hugged Josh.

Following this, the General told Josh to take the podium while he stood back. Josh went to the podium, collected himself and gave the most eloquent, impassioned and moving speech one can imagine.

I couldn't see Darcy Burner's face during this, but she must have felt as though the General had taken her to the woodshed. It was priceless.

Following his speech, Josh left the podium. General Eaton again hugged Josh and Josh returned to the table with the applause of the audience. Josh later described this as an out of body experience. One man at our table was reduced to tears.

During General Eaton's speech he made reference to Josh several times. He also noted that one of his sons is named Josh and that he is soon retuning to the Iraq theater (he has two sons in the Army). Following the speech a man stood and made an anti-war statement. Joe stood and made a statement about the loss of his son in Iraq and his disappointment in Murray for dodging us at every turn.

Following this I stood and was told to sit down by one of the organizers who was standing behind us (There must have been some fear that we were out of control.). I did not sit but made my statement. By this time the crowd was no longer focused on the fund raiser. Our planned event had become something much bigger than planned thanks to Josh's courage.

At this point the auction was supposed to have started, but a woman in the audience stood and said that given how things had developed, we should all stand in a moment of silence for the fallen in Iraq. It should have become clear at this point to all in attendance that the dinner was about an immoral and illegal occupation for which few are paying the price.

It's only too sad that Murray did not have the courage to stay to take a few comments from those of us who are in the 1% club who are sacrificing. Her rhetoric of "I support the Troops" must not be allowed to go unchallenged. After all, funding this war is killing out troops and she knows it. And it's ironic that an Army general had to identify to a person who wants to go to Congress what democracy is.

Following the dinner, and as we were leaving, several people approached Josh and thanked him. There were no negative comments. You could say that the East Side Democrats provided a forum for we of the West Side Tuesday Group. We will be forever grateful.

Today Joe and I went to Murray's office in another attempt to talk with her and to get a sense of how the event was viewed by Murray and her staff. Ardis talked with us because Murray was "out of town." She said that she didn't know much about the event. She didn't even know that General Eaton was there. We expressed our regret that Murray won't meet with us. She said that we have a great deal of access to Murray through her. I reminded her that she is not Senator Murray. I also reminded her that my son is returning to Iraq for the third time next week and that being a member of the 1% club can be lonely when the other 99% are asked only to go shopping.

What can we all take from the Bellevue theater event and our visit to Murray's office today?

Primarily we can always count on the courage of youth to bring us through. This is something that the military has known forever. We can also know that there are no limits to the depths to which a politician will sink in pursuit of power and the maintenance of office. There are some exceptions, but I can't think of them right now. For a Democrat like me, I am sad to make these observations about fellow Democrats.

Carry on the good fight and don't let the bastards wear you down.

In Peace and Solidarity,
Dave

my comments - would be Congresswoman Darcy Burner and Senator Patty Murray - maybe it would be better to embrace us (military families in Washington state with skin in the game) than what seems to be efforts to try to distance from us since we all share in common our grave concerns for our military at time of war. If General Paul Eaton can embrace us, if General Wesley Clark can embrace us, then it no longer makes political sense for either of you to seemingly wish to keep distance from us. Our messages may not be exactly the same, but all of us share in common those values of integrity, courage, honor, duty and service to our country.... we have more in common than we don't.

Speak to Joe, speak to Joshua, speak to David - all have served our country as are you and some have paid a heavier price for doing so. They are not your typical anti-war activists, for some their authentic experiences are so compelling as to have them make the difficult choice to be a military family speaking out; countering the very culture of bearing it all in stoic silence, exactly so others won't have to keep bearing it all in stoic silence.

I urge you to hear their personal stories, get to know them personally, hear why they feel compelled to do weekly Tuesday Vigils and hear their personal messages. They do not typify what is casually referred to in Seattle media as anti-war - they have authentic experiences to share and have earned the right to be heard above the din of the noise made by the anti-war crowd.

Army is worn too thin; calls force not ready to meet new threats says Army Chief of Staff General Casey

2007-09-27T09:16:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON - The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict - one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing - a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.

Casey, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted a public forum even though he has ample opportunity to speak to lawmakers in closed-door meetings.

Representative John M. McHugh, a New York Republican, said Casey's blunt testimony was "just downright frightening."

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked Congress for a record-setting $190 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year - nearly $50 billion more than anticipated. Most of the money would go to Iraq. If the request is approved, the cost of the 2003 invasion will top $600 billion.

Gates's request is expected to include $17 billion to manufacture thousands of new, heavily armored vehicles designed to withstand the lethal blasts of roadside bombs, the biggest cause of US combat deaths.

Seeking to head off Democrats' maneuvers to attach conditions, including troop withdrawals, on an Iraq spending bill they will send to President Bush, Gates urged the Senate Appropriations Committee "to approve the complete global war on terror request as quickly as possible," without "excessive and counterproductive restrictions."

But Casey, a four-star general who until earlier this year was the top commander in Iraq, made it clear to the House committee that the costs to ongoing military operations is rising, especially in terms of the United States' strategic position in the world.

The strain on the Army has been growing steadily since Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003 - the longest sustained combat for an all-volunteer American force since the Revolutionary War. The Pentagon and military analysts have documented the signs of the breakdown: serious recruiting problems, an exodus of young officers, and steadily falling readiness rates of nearly every stateside unit.

Casey's testimony yesterday sent a clear message: If President Bush or Congress does not significantly reduce US forces in Iraq soon, the Army will need far more resources - and money - to ensure it is prepared to handle future security threats that the general warned are all but inevitable.

"As we look to the future, national security experts are virtually unanimous in predicting that the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict," Casey told the panel, citing potential instability caused by globalization, humanitarian crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Casey's assessment of the Army's preparedness, however, was far more pessimistic than his predecessor's, General Peter Schoomaker, the former Army chief of staff.

When the same committee in January asked him about the Army's overall condition, Schoomaker answered only that he had "concerns" about the Army's "strategic depth."

Several Pentagon insiders have privately remarked that Casey's apparent alarm about the Army heightened when he returned from nearly three years of duty in Iraq. One civilian military adviser said that Casey was taken aback when informed at a recent meeting that some combat units were heading into battle short of key personnel. After the meeting, the adviser said, Casey took an officer aside and peppered him with questions about exactly which units were affected.

Casey and Geren insisted that the units now deployed to the combat zone are highly trained and outfitted with the proper equipment. However, they said the units of most concern are the ones returning from Iraq or those preparing to deploy without all the proper equipment.

Stocks of equipment the Army has positioned around the world are also growing low because of the war, they said. Replenishing those stockpiles, Casey told the committee, "will give us back our strategic flexibility."

A major risk for the future, however, is that the Army currently spends nearly all of its time training for counterinsurgency operations - "to the detriment of preparedness" for other types of combat, Casey testified. If troops don't continue to train, their skills "will atrophy over time."

Army units are now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for 15 months at a time. At current force levels, that allows them 12 months or less back home before being sent overseas again. Casey said yesterday that the cycle allows for "insufficient recovery time."

Compounding the situation, he said, is the fact that part-time soldiers in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard - considered the nation's backup forces in the event of a major conflict - "are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced."

At the same time, he said, the toll on soldiers' families is even greater, raising serious questions about whether the Army will be able to retain its best soldiers.

In the six months he has been Army chief of staff, Casey said that he and his wife have talked extensively with commanders and Army families about the pressures of repeated tours. "It was clear to us the families are affected," he said. "It's cumulative."

But he warned that the Pentagon's current system can not sufficiently support the troops or their families. "Army support systems including health, education, and family support systems are straining under the pressures from six years of war," he said.

Given enough resources, Casey predicted, it would take at least three to four years to restore the Army to full strength, including replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, adding tens of thousands more soldiers, and increasing health and other benefits for Army families coping with frequent deployments of loved ones.

But committee members wondered if there is enough time.

"This is foremost a question of strategic risk," said the committee's chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, noting that the United States has used military force on a dozen occasions over the past 30 years. "In most cases the United States was forced to act with little warning. It will happen again; later we hope, but undoubtedly sooner than we'd like."

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | September 27, 2007

Army is worn too thin says Army Chief of Staff General Casey
Calls force not ready to meet new threats

article at Boston Globe

John Cusack interviews Naomi Klein, author of 'The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism'

2007-09-26T08:15:00.000-07:00

John Cusack interviews Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which uses the war in Iraq to pull back the curtain on free market myths and expose the forces that are really driving our economy. She details how the crony capitalists running the Bush administration saw post-invasion Iraq as the perfect proving ground for all their pet free-market policies.

The fantasy was that a privitazied and corporatized Iraq would become a free-market utopia that would spread the gospel of the market throughout the Middle East. Klein's writings on Iraq helped inspire John Cusack to create a stinging new satiric film called War, Inc. The pair recently sat down for a HuffPost video - a lively and insightful conversation about The Shock Doctrine, Iraq, the burgeoning new economy that has sprung up around the war on terror, and Baghdad's Green Zone, which Klein calls "a heavily armed Carnival Cruise ship parked in a sea of despair."

see the interview video here

My thoughts; I've been only slightly attuned to the concepts portrayed in Naomi Klein's new book. Attuned enough though, to recognize the realities of how humans react to 'shock and awe', whether that is the death of a loved one that happens daily to families within communities, whether it is a national disaster/catastrophe as Sept 11, 2001 when the World Trade Towers were hit and came down, whether it is the climate of war, whether it is a tsunamic or hurricane of epic proportions, or whether it is the eroding effects of exposure to the exploitation of abuse in family and/or community situations.

What stands out for me about the premise of Naomi's research and thus, her book, is that she went looking for something she thought she would find to be a truism only to find a larger more ominous truism. It might well be worthwhile for the 'movement' as it calls itself to broaden the message, lose some of the old arguments and develop a strategy, replete with a message to include talking points to address the broader context of the shock doctrine and the rise of disaster capitalism as the underpinnings to what we know is happening all around us, inclusive of why Iraq and why stay, why no relief at the time or now to Hurricane Katrina sufferers, why the mortgage crisis which is upon is will generate an economic disaster for some while supporting the capitalist utopia laboratory Naomi points to in her book.

Beyond the concerns of President Eisenhower in his warnings of military industrial complex, beyond the concepts of marxism, communisim, beyond the concept of corporate America, it seems to me that as long as the 'movement' continues to use old strategies to counter old tensions, it cannot be effective in countering what is already in play now within our country and on the more global stage. I encourage and urge a reading and discussion of Naomi's book and the premise laid out in what she has found in her research.

General Patraeus responds; Sir, I don't know actually (to the question - if we continue Iraq strategy will it make America Safer?)

2007-09-12T11:48:00.000-07:00

in exchange at the General Petraeus report to Congress, Sept 11, 2007

Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy. Do you feel that that is making America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Warner: Does that make America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq.

Two of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote 'NYT' Op-Ed Die in Iraq

2007-09-12T10:42:00.000-07:00

Two of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote 'NYT' Op-Ed Die in Iraq

By Greg Mitchell
Published: September 12, 2007 7:25 AM ET

NEW YORK The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released.

Gen. Petraeus was questioned about the message of the op-ed in testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.

The controversial Times column on Aug. 19 was called "The War As We Saw It," and expressed skepticism about American gains in Iraq. “To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched,” the group wrote.

It closed: "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

Mora, 28, hailed from Texas City, Texas, and was a native of Ecuador, who had just become a U.S. citizen. He was due to leave Iraq in November and leaves behind a wife and daughter. Gray, 26, had lived in Ismay, Montana, and is also survived by a wife and infant daughter.

The accident in Iraq occurred when a cargo truck the men were riding in overturned.

The Daily News in Galveston interviewed Mora's mother, who confirmed his death and that he was one of the co-authors of the Times piece. The article today relates: "Olga Capetillo said that by the time Mora submitted the editorial, he had grown increasingly depressed. 'I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home,' she said. 'But yesterday is the darkest day for me.'”

One of the other five authors of the Times piece, Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head while the article was being written. He was expected to survive after being flown to a military hospital in the United States.

(The New York Times Op-ed Piece by the Seven Soldiers in Iraq)

The War As We Saw It
By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
The New York Times

Sunday 19 August 2007

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse - namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made - de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government - places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

Soldier Brian Rand Suicides. Never had a chance to see a psychiatrist. Instead the Army deployed him to Iraq a second time.

2007-09-11T16:31:00.000-07:00

Soldier's Tragic Suicide Just One of Dozens
By Aaron Glantz
Inter Press Service

Monday 10 September 2007

San Francisco - Dane and April Somdahl own the Alien Art tattoo parlor on Camp Lejeune Boulevard - just outside the sprawling Marine Corps base of the same name in Jacksonville, North Carolina.

In an interview from the back of her shop, April talked about how her customers' tastes have changed since George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

As the war approached, she said, "The most popular tattoos were eagles and United States flags. Those were coming in so often and, you know, everybody was like 'I gotta get my flag.'"

Then, a year into the war, the Somdahls noticed a new wave of Marines coming in to get information from their military dog tags tattooed onto their bodies. Most said they wanted so called "meat tags" so their bodies could be identified when they die.

"We went through over a year of meat tags, but then that passed too," she said. "Now we are seeing a lot of memorial tattoos. Even the wives are getting memorial tattoos - moms and dads in their fifties too. And in a lot of cases they're getting their first tattoos. And they're saying 'We didn't think we would ever get a tattoo, but this one is to remember my son.'"

Because of the changing needs of their clientèle, the Somdahls no longer blast rock and roll music inside the shop. Instead, the artists work in silence.

"The mood has died," April told IPS.

"For our employees to do tattoos of photos of fallen heroes, fallen friends, it plays hard on them," she said. "It makes it so our artists are depressed. The tattoo isn't done just for decoration or just for fun anymore. The tattoo has become a solid symbol of their feelings and a lot of it dealing with the war."

The mood is particularly heavy because the Somdahls have had a death in their own family. On Feb. 20, April's younger brother, Sergeant Brian Jason Rand, shot himself under the Cumberland River Centre Pavilion in Clarksville outside Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Officials at Fort Campbell refused to comment on Brian Rand's suicide, saying they don't discuss individual soldier's deaths. But the military brass has been investigating what seems like an increasing trend of soldiers taking their own lives.

Last month, the Army issued a document called the "Army Suicide Event Report, 2006" showing suicides were at their highest point in 26 years.

"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, the report said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.

The Army confirmed 99 suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the year before.

Brian Jason Rand was born Dec. 9, 1980 into a military family on base at Camp Lejeune. Throughout his life, he had always been in and around the military. He had deployed twice to Iraq, returning for the final time on Jan. 2, 2007.

It was during his first tour that April noticed a change. She chatted with him every evening over the internet. In the afternoon, while it was nighttime in Baghdad, she would sit in front of her computer in North Carolina, hook up a microphone and talk with her brother, trying to keep his spirits up.

But she could tell her brother was having an emotional meltdown.

"He would say 'April, I'm having terrible nightmares'," she said. "He told me about nightmares about dead Iraqis, their souls and spirits haunting him, following him, telling him to do stuff, and it got scarier and scarier."

April said she talked Brian to sleep nearly every night during his deployment - trying to keep him alive by giving him something to live for.

"I would talk to him in a very quiet voice and make sure not to make any sudden noises," she said. "I would tell him the grass is still green over here. The sky is still blue. Just close your eyes and picture the lawn that we laid on staring up at that sky. And it's still there. When you get back, when your job is done, when you do everything that they ask you to do, come back to me and we'll lay on the grass and we'll stare at the sky and we don't have to talk about anything."

But when Brian returned home from Iraq it wasn't the end of the story. He was emotionally unstable. His family said he knew he had problems and sought help from the military.

After he retuned from Iraq, for example, he filled out a post-deployment health assessment form, admitting to combat-related nightmares, depression and mood swings.

"When someone checks 'yes' to these types of things, clearly they should be evaluated for mental help," his widow, Dena Rand, told Clarksville's Leaf Chronicle newspaper, "but according to them, he never requested help."

Brian Rand never had a chance to see a psychiatrist. Instead of giving him the help he needed, the Army deployed him to Iraq a second time.

"We didn't have very many phone conversations at all during his last deployment," his sister April said. "The phone calls only came when he was spiraling out of control so it was very difficult to figure out what he was trying to communicate."

When he returned Fort Campbell for the final time in January 2007, his family said he had completely changed.

"He'd flip on a dime," Dena Rand recalled, describing scenarios, in public and private, which made him paranoid and agitated.

The Leaf Chronicle reported Dena Rand said her husband "was either intensely happy or desperately sad; there was no middle ground, which was nothing like the man she married, whom she described as a gentle person who would 'drop anything he was doing to help anyone.'"

On Feb. 8, Dena called the police when Jason started screaming at his stepdaughter, Cheyanne.

"Mrs. Rand stated that her husband was yelling at her daughter," Officer Mathew Campbell wrote in his report for the Clarksville police department. "Mrs. Rand went upstairs to make him stop and she stated that he turned and smacked her in the face. Mr. Rand was gone upon arrival."

About the same time, Jason called his sister, April.

"He said, 'Oh, I can see everything April. It all makes perfect sense now. I know what I have to do and it makes so much sense. I have to die. I have to leave the physical realm and leave earth and go up in heaven and be part of the Army of God and I've got to stop this war and save my guys here. And the best way I can do that is to do it up in heaven 'cause I can't do anything while I'm down here.'"

April told me she tried to talk her brother out of suicide. She mentioned that Dena was pregnant with their first child together. That child is going to need a father, she argued.

But Brian wouldn't listen.

"He said the baby will be fine," April said. "The baby will be taken care of ... and then he started talking about his favourite music and then from his favourite music he goes to saying 'You're going to have to know this. You're going to have to know my favourite movie. When I am gone you're going to want to watch my favourite movie, April. My favorite movie is Mousetrap.'"

Less than two weeks later, on Feb. 20, the Clarksville police department received a call about a body lying facedown under an entertainment pavilion on the banks of the Cumberland River, with a shotgun beside it.

Families Cracking Under War Pressure

2007-09-07T08:21:00.000-07:00

U.S. military families have become the unseen victims of the war in Iraq, with those left behind suffering when Soldiers go off to fight and when they finally return home.

"I don't know one military family that is still together or anything like they were before the Soldier in the family went to war," 30-year-old Mylinda, whose husband was among the first Marines to be deployed in Iraq, told AFP.

Mylinda's husband returned home from Iraq around a year ago after "we both decided then that he should leave the military because otherwise he would have had to go back," she said.

"We did pretty well when he first got back, but he never spoke about Iraq.

"I could see he was unhappy and he lost self-confidence when he left the military and couldn't find a job," she said.

Deployment News and Resources

But then came the bombshell.

"In March, he said he didn't want to be married any more," Mylinda said.

The majority of Iraq veterans who took part in a recent study acknowledged having "some family problem at least once a week," said Dr Steven Sayers of the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center in Philadelphia.

"About three-quarters of the veterans acknowledged having some family problem at least once a week. About half were unsure of their role or responsibility in the household," he said.

"It could be that being depressed, they are too self-critical, and that may complicate the task of being reintegrated into the family," Sayers said, adding that all the veterans sampled for the study had shown signs of depression or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

PTSD News and Resources

Children are among those who suffer most, both during their parent's deployment and after they return.

A study conducted for the Pentagon earlier this year showed that child abuse rose 42 percent and neglect doubled when a parent is deployed to a combat zone.

Retrospectively, Mylinda acknowledged that she was not "in control" of her family when her husband was in Iraq.

"I remember thinking I was in control of everything, but now I look back at events and things that happened, and I think maybe I wasn't," she said.

"I let my oldest, who was seven, do a lot of things I wouldn't usually approve of him doing -- riding his bike around town by himself, going off with friends unsupervised. Now he tells me the things he did, and I think: 'But I would never let you do that.'"

Dr Wendy Lane, head of the child protection team at the University of Maryland, blamed maltreatment and neglect by the parent left at home on severe stress.

"Child neglect and abuse are often the result of stress and the absence of social support," Lane told AFP.

"Having a spouse deployed is bound to be stressful, and it also removes that social support -- having someone to help with childcare responsibilities, to talk to about life's stress so that you don't take it out on your children," she said.

Mylinda said her children were angered and hurt by their parents' separation.

"The kids had a really hard time with it. My oldest was mad about it," she said. "But I don't think they associated it with Iraq ... They pretty much blamed themselves."

Pentagon official Lieutenant Colonel Les Melnyk told AFP that it was "difficult if not impossible" to determine if a military family's divorce or separation was due to deployment.

But, added Melnyk: "Strong marriages can weather a deployment, weak ones will be tested."

Although Melnyk and Sayers pointed to a number of programs and counselling available to Soldiers and their families, Mylinda said she and her children were not offered any help.

"My husband got all kinds of different classes and courses. He was able to talk to a lot of people on the boat coming back from Iraq -- about marriage, about family. But we didn't get anything," said Mylinda.

Mylinda's mother -- herself the wife of a veteran of the 1990s' Desert Storm campaign in Iraq -- blasted the US military for failing to adequately train Soldiers for combat and life after the armed forces.

"When an army recruiter came to the school where I taught, I did everything I could to keep kids from joining. I had seen too many people go off to fight in Desert Storm and then come back, changed for the worse," she said, asking not to be named.

"When we were in the military, it was a good, strong group of men that knew what they had to do and how to do it," she said.

"Now, you have boy scouts fighting over there. They get kids out of high school, put them in boot camp and then send them to fight.

"When they get out, all they know how to do is kill someone."

from website Military.com

(The comparison by the Mylinda's mother reflects an earlier generation and perhaps an earlier time in military life. It seems to me that Vietnam war also sent kids straight out of high school (via military draft) to train them up to be sent to Iraq to kill and return home with little to nothing in the way of debriefing, re-acclimation, reintegration. Nonetheless, there is a strong ring of truth to what she shares, enough so that I wanted to call attention to it.

For our family, where I was raised a military brat, it reflects an earlier generation and time in military life - post Korean War and pre Vietnam war. See the dvd 'Brats, Our Journey Home' for an accurate and fair representation of growing up a 'military brat'. But for me, when I graduated high school, married my high school sweetheart who was drafted by lottery and sent to Vietnam, military life wasn't what I grew up with or knew. Now, with Iraq war, and 2 in our family who are returning Iraq veterans; one is leaving for second deployment to Iraq next month -- military life has changed considerably and I can only describe it as exploitation with extreme callousness of what were and are some fine military values in honor, courage, service, duty --- integrity.
Lietta)

the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again - Maj. General Batiste

2007-08-31T13:16:00.001-07:00

In the words of Maj. General Batiste, U.S. Army, retired, recent op-ed said much more poignantly than I can seem to convey

The high price we are paying might be worth it if Iraq’s many factions were making meaningful progress to achieve political reconciliation. But, after more than four years, Iraqis are no closer to settling their differences and the sitting Shia government is ineffective. With insufficient coalition and Iraqi security forces on the ground, the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again.

Impeachment: A good way to say we were wrong

2007-08-29T11:26:00.000-07:00

excerpt: The Oscar-winning 1974 documentary "Hearts and Minds," about Vietnam, depicts a woman-on-the-street who asks this question: Why can't we just admit we were wrong? We expect grownups to do that when they make mistakes.

But how do we admit we were wrong? One way would be for the electorate to speak clearly with their ballots. They did so in November 2006, but that election has had no impact on the war's course.

Another way would be to impeach Bush. At other times, in other places, leaders who made major blunders — whether their fault or not — were expected to leave the scene. In this case, that is unlikely. Impeachment is unlikely, as well. Between the rigid party loyalists and the congressmen who are waiting longingly for the balance of Bush's term to expire, the votes are not available.

But in theory, impeachment is an attractive idea, not as a punishment for Bush, but as a way of saying that, knowing what we know now, we would never have gone into Iraq, which is a proposition that even thoughtful pro-war citizens should accept. It would be a way of taking this war away from our leaders who have mishandled it so badly.

read full article here;

John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. His e-mail address is jcrisp@delmar.edu.

Military Moms May Be a Force at the Polls

2007-08-29T11:17:00.000-07:00

One of the foremost experts on politics in the Granite State thinks she has found the next critical constituency: military moms.

"She would typically be a Republican who is not against war and is not necessarily against this war -- or at least may have supported it when it began," Jennifer Donahue, senior adviser for political affairs at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, said over sodas at the Red Arrow Diner last week.

The military mom -- who has either a child or a husband who is serving -- is disenchanted with the war. The question is: Will she shift allegiance to support a Democrat, or is she looking for an independent-minded Republican?

She is " the swing vote," Donahue said. Especially in New Hampshire.

One need look no further than down the counter at the Red Arrow to find a military mom, Elaine Boule, the manager, who lost a brother-in-law to the war in Iraq and is about to abandon her lifelong pattern of backing Republicans to support a Democrat ...

read more at Washington Post article

America’s national strategy in Iraq should be a four legged stool - diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military

2007-08-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former Commanding General of 1st Infantry Division, an op-ed guest blogger article on August 22, 2007, at Think Progress;

For my first post here at ThinkProgress, I thought I would share something a little different from what you usually read here — something from a conservative perspective. I think this is especially fitting, given the new poll of foreign policy experts by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, which shows 64 percent of conservative analysts feel the so-called “surge” in Iraq is having no impact, or a negative effect.

The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I’m posting it here…

Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.

As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik’s Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long.

It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort–the extension of politics by other means.

These principles are apparently not understood by many of the Republicans in our Congress. Besides the fact that many conservatives allowed President Bush to jump head-first into a war of choice, the bullheadedness of Congressional Republicans who argue for staying the course runs contrary to conservative values. Many politicians of my party continue to argue that we must liberally use up whatever our military has left. Bottom line, the Republican Congress of the last six years abrogated its Constitutional duty and share in the responsibility for the debacle in Iraq.

Our all-volunteer military cannot continue the current cycle of deployments for much longer. America’s national strategy in Iraq is akin to a four legged stool with legs representing diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military. The glue holding it all together must be the mobilization of the United States in support of the incredibly important effort to defeat world-wide Islamic extremism. The only leg on the stool of any consequence is the military–it is solid titanium and high performing, the best in the world. After almost six years since September 11, our country is not mobilized behind this important work and the diplomatic, political, and economic legs are not focused and lack leadership. Most Americans now appreciate that the military alone cannot solve the problem in Iraq. In this situation, the stool will surely collapse.

Our military and our treasury are not unlimited resources. The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix. Our brigades and divisions in Iraq today are at near full strength because the rest of the force has been gutted. We cannot place America in a position of weakness as it just begins its long war against world-wide Islamic extremism. The Republican administration is bleeding our national treasure in blood and dollars with little to show for it.

The high price we are paying might be worth it if Iraq’s many factions were making meaningful progress to achieve political reconciliation. But, after more than four years, Iraqis are no closer to settling their differences and the sitting Shia government is ineffective. With insufficient coalition and Iraqi security forces on the ground, the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again. The Iraqi Parliament goes on vacation instead of working, and every few months, it seems, another Iraqi political faction walks out of the process. To me, continuing to expend money and American lives on a nation that shows little drive to solve its own problems is the foreign policy equivalent of a welfare queen.

The only way to stabilize Iraq and allow our military to rearm and refit for the long fight ahead is to begin a responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq and replace the troops with far less expensive and much more effective resources–those of diplomacy and the critical work of political reconciliation and economic recovery. In other words, when it comes to Iraq, it’s time for conservatives to once again be conservative.

– Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired)
August 22, 2007

Army Wives Take Action - Women Bypass VA To Get Better Care For Their Injured Husbands

2007-07-26T12:04:00.000-07:00

There have been heartbreaking stories about the shoddy level of veterans' care since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two Army wives decided that wasn't good enough for them, and, as CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports, they took matters into their own hands.

"I just couldn't accept what we were being told by the VA," says Marissa Behee.

Behee is not a soldier, but she's one of the fiercest warriors of the Iraq War. Ever since her husband, Staff Sgt. Jarod Behee, was shot in the head, she has been fighting for him — and against a Veterans Administration she says was unprepared for the needs of grievously wounded soldiers.

"It's not just Jarod. I mean, he's one of how many that are coming home with a signature head wound. There are so many more out there, and this cannot continue to happen to all those people coming home," she says.

A sniper's bullet drove fragments of Jarod's skull deep into his brain. He probably would not have survived in an earlier war, according to Dr. Rocco Armondo.

With Jarod's life saved, the next battle was at the Palo Alto, Calif., VA hospital where, Marissa says, her husband wasn't getting the therapy he needed.

"It felt like we were just in this holding pattern and our next step in their book was a nursing home," she said. "To me, that wasn't a great plan."

On her own, Marissa found Casa Colina, a private rehabilitation hospital in southern California.

Marissa says she saw a change in Jarod immediately.

"We went from three months at the VA telling us that Jarod can't do this, he can't do that. Then we came here and they got him on his feet and tried walking him around the gym, just to see what he was capable of and to know what they had to work on."

How did it feel to Jarod?

"It felt great," he says. "I was actually getting therapy."

Despite his brain injury, Jarod was capable of walking and more; he was able to work as a hospital assistant. Had Marissa not been so persistent, she says, Jarod "would be sitting in a nursing home right now."

With her battle won, Marissa went to work on a Web site , Wounded Soldier Staff Sgt Jarod Behee, to tell other families what Casa Colina had done for her husband.

read more at CBS news or see the CBS print this page.

Iraq veterans present the first of the folded flags to Congress in "FUNDING THE WAR IS KILLING THE TROOPS" campaign

2007-07-18T09:09:00.000-07:00

Iraq veterans present the folded flag to Representative Hoyer's Chief of Staff.

Iraq Vets Announce Tri-Folded Flag Campaign to Hold Congress Responsible:
"FUNDING THE WAR IS KILLING THE TROOPS"

Washington , DC : Iraq Veterans Against the War is urging a rapid and safe withdrawal of troops from Iraq , adequate funding of the needs of veterans when they return and the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis.

According to Garett Reppenhagen, Chair of Iraq Vets Against the War: " Iraq Veterans Against the War is a growing movement of Iraq War era veterans and active duty service members that are opposing the occupation of Iraq . Through our military experience we have learned that the continued presence of US troops in the Middle-East is instigating further hatred toward American Armed Forces and undermining our nation's security. As a result, our military in Iraq is viewed by the majority of the world as occupiers and not peace keepers. The Iraq Veterans Against the War stands by the belief that funding the war is killing the troops."

IVAW will be holding a press conference, rally and the delivery of Tri-Folded American Flags to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn on Tuesday, July 17th at the Upper Senate Park at 1:00 PM. A rally will be held at 2:00 PM and flags will be delivered at 3:00 PM.

Speaking at the press conference will be Garett Rappenhagen, Adam Kokesh – who recently gained national media attention when the Marines threatened him with discipline for his anti-war advocacy and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. is the President of the Hip Hop Caucus, an Air Force Officer who is being threatened with discharge from the Air Force Reserve Individual Reserve Program as a 'national security threat' due to his anti-war, climate change and civil rights activism.

Adam Kokesh described how funding the war is killing the troops saying "As a proud combat veteran who believes in a strong US military and national defense, I find the Iraq war most offensive. Resources that could be allocated to a multitude of other projects to enhance our security are instead being diverted into the futile occupation of Iraq . The brave men and women who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution deserve better than to risk their lives in a misadventure that is detrimental to our security, and our Constitution. Further funding of this quagmire will only result in more needless deaths."

Rev. Yearwood put the blame for failure to end the war on the Democratic Party leadership saying "On Nov 7, 2006, America went to the polls to demand an end to the war in Iraq, yet this Democratic Congress continues to fund the occupation. As a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, I can say we did not vote for a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, we voted for a Human Congress. Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn are putting the interests of the Democratic Party before the interests of humanity, and until they use their leadership in Congress to de-fund the war, Iraq Veterans Against the War holds them personally responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers." Yearwood is also a board member of VotersForPeace which puts 'peace before partisanship.'

The Tri-Folded Flag Campaign is being spearheaded by Iraq Veterans Against the War but already other anti-war groups are joining in. Among the groups already signed on to the multi-month campaign are Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, VotersForPeace, Grassroots America, the Hip Hop Caucus and Democracy Rising. The campaign will let the House Democratic leadership know that voters will be holding them responsible for failing to end the war by sending them tri-folded flags between now and the end of September.

It was a little more than 'dental problems' - Secretary of VA, Jim Nicholson Resigns

2007-07-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, Jim Nicholson, announced he will be resigning on October 1, 2007, according to a press release from his office.

Nicholson has weathered a number of scandals, namely the massive loss of veterans' data in 2006, since he was sworn in as Secretary of Veterans' Affairs on February 1, 2005. Nicholson was also criticized for claiming the number of injured vets is overblown since "a lot of them come in for dental problems."

Nicholson plans to return to the private sector. He did not release any definite plans.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Resigns

Also I urge you to see and hear the fullness of Jim Nicholson in his inadequate responses being interviewed in video - link
'Bob Woodruff: To Iraq and Back' in which he responds to the VA's lack of ability or resources to respond to the severity of Traumatic Brain Injury with his comment 'a lot of them come in for dental problems.'

And see my story on the ABC special 'Bob Woodruff; To Iraq and Back' at Washblog.

excerpt

At a hearing held last June by the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs Under Secretary for Health Jonathan Perlin testified that, "Traumatic Brain Injury accounts for almost 25 percent of combat casualties suffered in OIF/OEF by US Forces." With over 20,000 combat injuries to date during the ongoing global war on terror, this means that there are almost 5,000 service members suffering from traumatic brain injuries. While advances in body armor and battlefield medicine save the lives of many soldiers, they do not protect against impacts that cause brain injury.

'the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily' General Wesley Clark testimony at House Armed Services

2007-07-17T08:59:00.000-07:00

To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."

On July 12, 2007, General Clark testified before the House Armed Services'
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee

It's only proper, therefore, that this Subcommittee help ask and answer the hard questions to be asked concerning our over four years deployment in Iraq: whether it is "succeeding," and, if not, how the mission should be modified or curtailed, and at what cost.

These questions are in no way the material of abstract, hypothetical musings. Just about everyone in public life has now formed strong opinions, and certainly the American public has, also. By strong majorities they believe the war is unwinnable, and want the strategy changed. They also want the troops brought home - and taken good care of when they return here - but they don't want to lose. And so the public debate has increasingly turned on the consequences of a withdrawal for Iraq, our friends in the region, and for ourselves - with a "precipitous withdrawal" being the one which leads to increased violence.

You can receive the testimonies of the generals and state Department experts that can discuss every tribe, militia and province. I don't propose to do that today. But what I would like to do is offer my perspective on the region, and then propose a course of action which could prove to be the "least worst" of the choices available.

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

These struggles help frame the ongoing conflict in Iraq, circumscribing the options and weighting the alternatives. The US will not and cannot abandon the region, nor our friends and interests there. The analogy with the US withdrawal from South Vietnam ought therefore to be unthinkable. US interests require continuing engagement in this region. But neither can the US make mincemeat of the fragile and artificially created states in the region, nor the governments that rule them, however much we should disagree with their policies and principles, for any of these existing governments is, if not a bulwark against a stronger Al Qaeda presence, then at least a regional actor which may be held accountable in some sense. We don't need any more failed states in the region, whether in Gaza or in Iran. Yet over the next twelve-to-eighteen months the Iranian nuclear effort is likely to culminate in the credible capability of significant uranium enrichment, and, absent a real diplomatic initiative from the Bush Administration, either this Administration or the next will be forced to acquiesce in an Iranian nuclear capability - with all the risk that entails - or execute a series of air and naval strikes to delay or destroy that capability - with the risks of further aggravating tensions and terrorist activities as well as disrupting global markets and flows.

So, the issue isn't troop strength in Iraq, but rather US national strategy in the region. As of now, it is not too late for that strategy to be significantly altered. The US would have to renounce its aims and efforts of regime changes, pull back such forceful advocacy of democratization, engage in sustained diplomatic dialogue with governments in the region, including Syria and Iran, heed the advice of regional friends and allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar, and work not to isolate Hamas but to reshape it. This new strategic approach to the region must be linked to a deeper, more effective political effort within Iraq to align interests and structures, in order to produce the kinds of compromises necessary to end the civil war there. The tactics, principles and techniques of such a shift in strategy are no mystery. I and many others have for years called for such changes. But it seems all too clear that the leaders in the White House today have not, thus far, even seriously considered such change. They persist in seeking a largely military solution, focusing on troop strength and tactics, and have had the temerity to label a 20% increase in US troops as a "new strategy," when all along it has been obvious that we have needed perhaps three times the on-the-ground troop presence they directed.

Consequently the "surge" strategy has produced no miracles: some local progress in Baghdad neighborhoods, perhaps, and an accompanying effort, perhaps underwritten by our Saudi friends, against Al Qaeda in Anbar. But the political agreements expected to emerge, miraculously, from the presence of a few more thousand US troops in Baghdad haven't.

The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.

When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.

In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle.

For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. At best, this underscores the seriousness of the American people and helps incentivize Iraqi leaders themselves work to stop the conflict through suitable dialogue and compromise. Thus far, this has been notably lacking among the Iraqi's. At the very least, the redeployment will provide immediate relief for overstretched US ground forces.

These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months.

But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out.

This is the force which would effectively under gird US diplomacy, assist the Iraqi's, maintain US capabilities against terrorists, and provide sufficient relief for the US to regain strategic military maneuverability.

However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time.

To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders.

7/12/07 - General Wesley Clark's Testimony before the House Armed Services' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee | WesPAC

Seed Newsvine

How can you argue with this young soldier? His truth exceeds any political truth.

2007-07-16T21:16:00.000-07:00

An offer Bush, Cheney, Lindsey Graham, & McRomniani should not refuse.

Do you realize just what you say when you spill terrible talking points?

The troops may as a majority harbor traditional patriotic sentiment but they ain't as stupid as our politicians.

Some of them are just plain common sense human beings.

Here's my hurried transcript excerpt from an ABC News film clip (Thanks for the tip to Dan at On The Road to 2008)

"I challenge Bush to come and spend a tour with me. I'll serve another 15 months if he will. They don't need to pay me any more. They don't have to do anything just come here and hang out with me.

We have people up there in Congress with brain of a two year old who don't know what they're doing. They don't experience it.

I challenge the President or whoever has us here for 15 months to ride along side me. I'll do another fifteen months if he comes out here and rides along with me every day for 15 months. I'll do 15 more months. They don't even have to pay me extra."

(edit update)

This is the followup report to the ABC News report, of Sean Smith's embed with American troops in Baghdad from The Guardian, that aired on 7-16-07.

Here is the written report:
'I Am the Mother of the Driver'"I am the mother of the driver of the Bradley you see upside down and burning," she wrote. "He was 19 years old and could see the futility of Iraq invasion and occupation."
from ABC comments on their newscast exclusive; soldier challenges Congress in 'A Violent and 'Normal' Day in Baghdad' footage. "I am Alex Varela's mother, the driver of the bradley shown here upside down and burning, 6 soldiers from the 1-5 Cavalry out of Fort Hood Texas died on May 19th and I hope the pictures this nation is viewing become an Icon for the occupation ending'

photo at ABC News Smith captured a deadly attack on a Bradley armored vehicle, seen here. (photo credit -Sean Smith/Guardian)

'I Am The Mother of the Driver"
Reactions to Rare Footage of U.S. Troops in Iraq

(Edit update)

Rarely seen on our News programs. We get major blast news, numbers killed of civilians and how many of our Military Personal, but rare footage of what's happening Daily. ABC News showed a cut of this report on 7-16-07, the Guardian Unlimited has the full report and it was shown on British TV.

"I challenge Congress and the President to do my Rotation!!"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2125978,00.html

The Guardian's award-winning photographer and filmmaker Sean Smith spent two months embedded with US troops in Baghdad and Anbar province. His harrowing documentary exposes the exhaustion and disillusionment of the soldiers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Seed Newsvine