First it was John McCain who spoke of the bracelet he wore, bearing the name of Matthew Stanley, an Army soldier killed in late 2006 by a roadside bomb.  McCain said:

Soon it was Obama's turn to speak.  As he directed his answer to debate moderator Jim Lehrer, Obama stammered briefly as he looked to his bracelet before reading the name of Ryan Jopek, a soldier killed by a roadside bomb in August 2006.

Yesterday's New York Post took a further look at the issue and quoted an interview Ryan Jopek's father gave on Wisconsin Public Radio earlier this year.  Brian Jopek, who is divorced from Ryan's mother, had this to say:

In response to questioning from Fox News anchors about the appropriateness of Obama's mention of Ryan Jopek, senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs accused the interviewers of making up facts during a short and heated exchange.



The National Review's campaign blog saw Obama's actions as "revealing" if indeed he'd gotten the message about Tracy Jopek's wishes:

So, maybe Jopek's latest statements to the AP settles the whole thing as it applies to the context of the debate.  The question that people don't seem to be asking, however, is whether it was appropriate for both candidates to even mention the bracelets at all.  If indeed they were wearing the bracelets as a sign of personal remembrance, why feel the need to point it out on national television? The answer is pretty obvious, but is that enough to make it OK?

1) Will the candidates (and the moderator) note the difference between "tactical" success of the surge, versus the overall strategic goal of the surge, and whether that was a success?

2) Will the candidates be challenged on the deteriorating situation with Pakistan? Will Obama hold to his position that we must act to strike terrorists officially inside Pakistan's borders, and will McCain hold to his view that Obama is wrong to strike in the ungoverned parts of Pakistan without the expressed consent from Islamabad?

3) Will the candidates speak about our inability to take care of our current military commitments, let alone new ones?

4) Will the candidates lay out what steps short of military action they would take to prevent a nuclear Iran?

5) Given news that Prime Minister Maliki has hinted that he prefers a timeline that removes troops by 2010, but was pressured to accept a 2011 timeline due to U.S. political considerations, will the candidates consider moving a timeline to exit Iraq back to 2010, or do they consider that unrealistic?

"Tell me why there's any rational reason why you shouldn't have a seat at that table," Biden said, speaking one day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain addressed the group.

Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, adjutant general of Biden's home state of Delaware and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, said such recognition, similar to that given the Marine Corps after initial representation by the Navy, is long overdue.

"It's something that we certainly are advocating as an association," said Vavala, who noted that more than a third of the Army and Air Force consists of National Guard units, and that the Guard numbers almost 500,000 men and women.

"Our people are fighting the war every day," he said, adding that the notion of Guardsmen as "weekend warriors" no longer applies.

Biden's eldest son, Delaware attorney general Beau Biden, is a captain in a National Guard unit that is to report for training next month before being deployed to Iraq.

As the presidential election draws near -- and partly in response to Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate -- Askari apparently has softened his rhetoric on the U.S. presence.

He still favors withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, as proposed in the security treaty. And he figures that the deadline will be honored by whoever wins, if only for the sake of the 2012 American elections.

But changing now from a Republican to a Democratic administration would be problematic, he says -- not least because Obama has said the U.S. Congress should be involved in any status-of-forces agreement with Iraq.

Askari also expressed concern about Biden's 2007 plan to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions -- Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni -- with a central government in Baghdad. He called the Biden plan "the essence of a nightmare feared by Iraqis."

"Not that any of Biden's proposals will take effect, as the socio-political reality in Iraq is undividable," he continued. "But Iraqis will pay dearly until Biden and his camp are convinced that his 'theory' is inapplicable in Iraq."

As both an Iraq war veteran and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, I am intimately familiar with John McCain's valiant and honorable military service. McCain, as far as I am concerned, is a true American hero. Unfortunately, his heroism in the Vietnam War has been allowed to morph into a patently false "record" - ceaselessly touted by his campaign - that McCain is a strong advocate for veterans. That could not be further from the truth...

...The nation's largest Iraq veterans organization, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan organization, grades members of Congress on how they vote on legislation that "affect[s] troops, veterans or military families." This includes votes on such issues as expanded health care services for veterans and reservists, military death benefits, traumatic brain injury research and adequate rest for service members between deployments, just to name a few.

Of the 155 votes tracked by IAVA since 9/11, John McCain received a grade of "D." While no senator earned a grade of "A," Barack Obama got a "B ."

Words on Iraq by the candidates themselves still continue to follow the same lines of reason and criticism.  Writing on a Wall Street Journal blog, Elizabeth Holmes described John McCain's appearance at the same National Guard convention at which Biden spoke.  During his speech McCain took the opportunity to combine the economy and Iraq in order to highlight his opponent's lack of leadership:

“Whether it’s a reversal in war, or an economic emergency, he reacts as a politician and not as a leader, seeking an advantage for himself instead of a solution for his country.”

“John McCain is so out of touch that he wants to keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq indefinitely while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus and our economy is in turmoil.”

Movie critics have pointed to the fact Americans already see the war everyday on the news (at least, for many years they did), and fictionalized portrayals simply don't have the escapism movies can provide.  Then there's the over-saturation of political messages some of the movies contained.  Washington Times movie critic Christian Toto told NPR last year: "A lot of the critics of the more recent films have said that the films are full of speeches, and it's very obvious what the political angle is.  And I think an artist, maybe if he or she had some time to reflect on the material, may give a more nuanced balanced performance."

Creative Loafing's J.r. Jones took a brief look at the history of war movies made soon after the wars they portrayed ended.  He began with 1946's The Best Years of Our Lives, a truly amazing film following three veterans home from WWII as they deal with alcoholism, family tensions, and their injuries.  The film was awarded eight Oscars.  The post-Vietnam era saw the movies The Dear Hunter and Coming Home receive critical acclaim and solid public interest.  Then came Iraq (and notice there really hasn't been any major film looking at the Korean War, other than maybe the Manchurian Candidate -- but, that's a different story).  Jones gave a solid history of Iraq movies up to this point:

Dramas about returning Iraq war veterans haven't received nearly so warm a welcome. The first, Irwin Winkler's Home of the Brave, opened in New York and LA shortly before Christmas 2006 and was released a little more widely the following summer, mostly near military bases, but it quickly vanished. Clearly modeled on The Best Years of Our Lives, it followed three soldiers as they tried to adjust to life in a country that didn't want to think about them or the war they'd been fighting. I wouldn't call it a knockout, but it had some powerful scenes, particularly those involving Jessica Biel as a soldier who'd lost a hand and was now forced to make do with a big, clumsy prosthesis obviously designed for a man. Kimberly Peirce's Stop-Loss, an MTV-produced drama about three young grunts returning from the war to their stars-and-stripes Texas town, got a more respectful rollout from Paramount Pictures this past March, but it flopped, grossing less than half its $25 million production cost.

"The Lucky Ones," co-writer/director Neil Burger's credible if unremarkable follow-up to his extraordinary "The Illusionist," refers to soldiers returning from Iraq in one piece...What follows is a series of occasionally funny encounters, as well as some soapy complications not so unpleasant as they are predictable. There are the requisite moving moments, too, making "The Lucky Ones" no more or less noteworthy than the slew of war movies preceding it in the last year or two.

The film...has Iraq on its mind, though it never mentions the word. It wants to make some kind of commentary on how the country hasn't come to grips with the war or its veterans without taking the issue head-on. Perhaps the director and his co-writer, Dirk Wittenborn ("Fierce People''), thought a lighter, entertaining approach would work after so many box-office failures about the war that were either dark thrillers or dramas. But the contrived and convoluted plot of "The Lucky Ones'' eventually undermines any serious intentions.

Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, many United States citizens were detained by Iraq, beaten, subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, confined under deplorable conditions, and used as `human shields' for the avowed purpose of preventing the United States and its coalition allies from using military force to liberate Kuwait...At the time these acts occurred, the Department of State had classified Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

“If what we do is to offer the tortured American POWs settlements that are the equivalent of the price of a used car, we're simply going to perpetuate this torture of POWs over and over. And say the price of torturing American POWs is virtually nothing."

On Christmas Eve last year, President Bush unexpectedly vetoed the massive $3.5 billion defense authorization bill. He specifically cited a provision intended to help the POWs receive their award. Congressional Quarterly reported the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion in assets from U.S. banks if the provision were to become law.

"I was so angry when that happened. It effectively gave immunity from torture in violation of the third Geneva Convention," Braley said. "What message does this send to the world?"

“They wrapped a wire around one ear, one underneath my chin, wrapped it around another ear and hooked it up to some electrical device. Asked a question. I wasn't interested in answering,” recalls Tice.

“They would turn on the juice. And what that does is it, it creates a ball of lightning in your mind or in your head. Drives all your muscles simultaneously together and it drives your jaw and everything together. And, of course, I'm chained to a chair. I can't move freely. So everything is jerking into a little ball. And your teeth are being forced together with such force. I'm breaking pieces and parts off.”

Tice’s jaw was dislocated so many times that he says he was lucky to be able to put it back into place.

The dress code for the handover of American power in Iraq from Gen. David Petraeus to Gen. Ray Odierno was different today than it had been when Petraeus took the job 19 months ago. For reporters riding the armored military bus – the "Rhino" – to the ceremony, helmets and bullet-proof vests were optional. Last year, amid the anarchic sectarian violence and frequent deadly attacks on U.S. forces, protective gear was a must, even with the armor, on the ride down the dangerous airport road to the American military headquarters west of Baghdad.

Having overseen the recent drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency manual, General Petraeus is also likely to change the American military operation in Baghdad. American forces can be expected to take up positions in neighborhoods throughout the capital instead of limiting themselves to conducting patrols from large, fortified bases in and around the city.

The overarching goal of the American military operation may be altered as well. Under General Casey, the principal focus has been on transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces, so American troops could gradually withdraw. Now, the emphasis will shift to protecting the Iraqi population from sectarian strife and insurgent attacks.

When I took command of Multi-National Force-Iraq in February 2007, I noted the situation in Iraq was hard but not hopeless.  You have proven that assessment to be correct.  Indeed, your great work, sacrifice, courage, and skill have helped to reverse a downward spiral toward civil war and to wrest the initiative from the enemies of the new Iraq...The progress achieved has been hard-earned.  There have been many tough days along the way, and we have suffered tragic losses.  Indeed, nothing in Iraq has been anything but hard.  But you have been more than equal to every task.

Odierno was on his way home in 2004 when his then 26-year-old son Tony was headed into Iraq—the two met for a 90-minute dinner in a mess tent in Kuwait. General Odierno at that point was sometimes referred to as “Tony Soprano” for his very tough line with Iraqis suspected of being involved in insurgent activity.

But for the entire Odierno family, the war was about to change.

Five months later, while on patrol in Baghdad, young Tony was wounded when the Humvee he was riding in was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. The driver was killed instantly; Tony’s armed was ripped off. General Odierno and his wife Linda got the call and were on a plane within hours—like so many other parents—flying to Landstuhl Hospital in Germany to meet the medivac flight out of Iraq.

Petraeus oversaw the surge, but it was Odierno who first proposed it in December 2006 to a resistant Pentagon, setting the stage for what would become a pivotal turn in the unpopular war.

Odierno, a hulking artillery man criticised for running roughshod over civilians during his first tour to Iraq in 2003-2004, implemented the "surge" as corps commander from December 2006 to March 2008.

He carried out the detailed campaign that poured US troops into Baghdad, cleared Al-Qaeda insurgents from havens surrounding the capital, and targeted Shiite extremists...Odierno has argued consistently against sharp cutbacks in force levels in Iraq, which is negotiating a security pact with Washington to determine troop levels after a UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

Few US military commanders or soldiers have much good to say about Odierno's aggressive tactics. His division's mistreatment of Iraqis and the heavy use of artillery appalled others within the country's armed forces.

Army reporters and commanders said Odierno's unit - a heavy armoured division, despite its name – used an iron-fist strategy that may have appeared to pacify the area in the short term, but alienated large parts of the population. Some argue that the behaviour of the 4th Infantry Division helped create the insurgency.

"Fourth ID fuelled the insurgency," an army psychological operations officer told Thomas Ricks in his book on the Iraq war, Fiasco. An unnamed general said bluntly: "The 4th ID – what they did was a crime."

Odierno defended his troops' conduct by saying his men faced a population more hostile than in the rest of Iraq and had to act accordingly.

Generals Odierno and Petraeus are certainly two different types of men who've assumed command in Iraq at very different times.  If Petraeus' tenure was marked by the surge's heavy fighting, Odierno's seems as if it will be marked by his ability to address Iraq's challenges without the use of rifles but with words and laws.  During his brief remarks today the general summed up precisely what he's looking to do:

"Time is changing. Iraq is going to take more responsibility. The environment has changed. What I hope to see is a change from military to political, economic and diplomatic strategy."

"This summer when I was preparing the release of my book we were putting together a DVD with some of my reports from Vietnam and then I thought, 'I wonder if we have McCain here?'" Eriksson said...

...Eriksson said he covered the Vietnam War for SVT as well as U.S. television networks CBS and NBC. He explained that in February 1973, he was in Hanoi filming the release of the first American pilot prisoners, but had to return home to edit the film "because it was the first release that was sensational."

"However, we knew that more prisoners would probably be released shortly, so we left a camera and lots of film with a North Vietnamese photographer and asked him to film all the releases of U.S. prisoners," Eriksson said.

The NATO-led force said one soldier was killed when insurgents attacked a compound. The separate U.S.-led coalition said a second service member died in combat. No other details were released, but a Western military official told The Associated Press that both troops were American.

Mullen said the new strategy for Afghanistan must focus on more than just increasing troop strength. He noted that existing provincial reconstruction teams did not have enough agricultural, educational and judicial experts. The U.S. must focus on boosting foreign investment and improving governance in Afghanistan, he said.

"We can't kill our way to victory," Mullen said.

Mullen said he was not convinced the U.S. and its allies were winning in Afghanistan but said he believed victory was possible.

After four months of intense criticism over a universal ban on non-partisan voter registration drives at federal veterans facilities, the Department of Veterans Affairs yesterday announced it will allow such drives provided they don't interfere with day-to-day operations.  In a brief press release the VA outlined conditions promoting voter registration within its facilities:

The policy requires that information about the right of VA patients to register and vote, and other patients’ rights, be posted in every VA hospital, and that all VA patients be provided a copy of these rights when they are admitted to a VA facility.

Every hospital is now also required to publish a written policy on voter assistance, allowing patients to leave the hospital to register and vote, subject to the opinions of their health care providers.  Patients unable to leave the facility must be assisted to register and to vote by absentee ballot.

"[The VA] wanted to ensure that our staff remains focused on caring for our veterans instead of having to determine the political agenda of each group that might try to enter our facilities.”

On April 25, 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs responded to our request for a consistent voter registration policy by issuing Directive 2008-23. While we do not believe it went far enough, we commend the changes made by the Directive which provided that veterans would be required to receive voter information and assistance in registering and applying for an absentee ballot...However, in the few days following the issuance of the first directive, the Department apparently withdrew it. Without explaining the rationale for this change, the Department today released a new policy, Directive 2008-25...it appears that a new and broad prohibition was included against third-party organizations conducting voter registration drives.

On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.

Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

Now with yesterday's new VA directive, it remains to be seen whether the flurry of criticism will end as veterans like Mr. O'Nieal start to register with more ease -- or, if in reality, all of this is coming too late.  With less than two months until the presidential election, some critics wonder if there is enough time to register a significant number of veterans.  In an interview with the New York Times, Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, gave his view of the situation:

“The real question now is whether the V.A. will implement the new policy in time for the November election and whether local and state voting officials will take proactive steps to sign up the veterans at these facilities.”

 
Though it's unlikely that even a modest surge in the number of veterans registered to vote would influence the presidential election, it's still interesting to note where most veterans seem to stand politically.  In late August Gallup released information showing veterans favor McCain over Obama 56 to 34-percent.  The statistics came at a time when overall U.S. voters were favoring Obama over McCain 46 to 43-percent.  Gallup also looked to see whether veterans were favoring McCain because he is a veteran himself, or whether they favor him out of a greater affinity for the Republican platform.  According to the pollsters:

McCain clearly holds an advantage over Obama among veterans, but that is probably due more to the fact that veterans tend to be Republicans than to the fact that McCain himself served in the military and is regarded by some as a war hero. Veterans showed similarly strong support for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. The data suggest there still is an effect of military service on candidate preference, but it is rather small and is overwhelmed by the effects of party affiliation.