-
David Botti
|
May 19, 2008 09:15 AM
Late last week a U.S. Army soldier stood in the rotunda of the Cannon
House Office Building and announced during a press conference that he's
now refusing orders for deployment to Iraq. Sergeant Matthis Chiroux,
who served as a military photojournalist, gave his statement soon after
a number of anti-war veterans testified before Congress -- the first
time such veterans have done so. AFP gave this account of the hearing:
Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told the landmark
hearing
of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis." He
spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq
to find little help or treatment offered from official circles.
Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the
wounds of the war...Another
soldier told AFP he had to boost his medication to treat anxiety and
social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries
since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying. A group of
veterans in the
packed hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies
shattered the official version that the U.S. effort in Iraq is
succeeding. Almost to a man, the testifiers denounced serious flaws in
the chain of command in Iraq.
As for Sgt. Chiroux, he said his position as a military journalist
gave exposed him to countless disturbing stories he was afraid to
publish for fear of retribution by the Army. He arrived in Washington,
D.C. with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW),
which coordinated the testimonies before Congress. Below is a video of
Chiroux's speech, where he also said he will remain in the U.S. despite
the great number of war resistors who move to Canada.
More
-
David Botti
|
May 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Discussion over proposed GI Bill overhauls is front and center on the
House floor as lawmakers debate an add-on to President Bush's request
for more war funding. The goal of the add-on is to update the WWII-era
GI Bill which allows veterans to receive money for attending college.
Under the current proposal, Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be allowed
to attend any four-year public university after having served at least
three years in the active-duty military. To pay for this, the plan
calls for a surtax on people making over $500,000, or couples with a
combined income of $1 million. The Associated Press has reactions from both sides of the debate:
"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million
to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are
paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
The White House weighed in with an official veto promise Thursday that also attacked the Democratic plan for increasing taxes.
"The president has been clear that tax increases are unacceptable," the White House statement said.
The
overall war spending bill proposal calls for $163 billion to fight the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the GI Bill add-on expects to raise
$54 billion over the next 10 years through the surtax. The bill would
also allow veterans 15 years to use the benefits, whereas currently the
limit is 10 years.
In the Senate Wednesday, Sen. McCain's
proposal for a GI Bill overhaul lost in a 55-42 vote to a counter
proposal by Sen. Jim Webb. MSNBC summarized the differences between the two:
In the simplest terms, the Webb bill would effectively pay for tuition
and housing at a four-year public college for those serving at least
three years of active duty. The McCain measure isn't as generous, as it
increases existing education benefits by $400 a month for the same time
served: from $1,100 to $1,500.
After the vote, McCain had this reaction [via ABC News]:
“My job is to get people to stay in the military, not only to join, but
to stay as well,” McCain said, although he added that he will be
sitting down with Webb to try to work out a compromise. He wants to
make sure to include a component of his bill which is not in Webb bill
that would allow for transferability of benefits to family members.
Talk
of McCain's proposal also entered the presidential campaigns when
Barack Obama criticized his potential opponent's unwillingness to
expand more veterans benefits. McCain's camp countered by saying it
was absurd for Obama to criticize McCain's commitment to veterans. In
Obama's words [via USA Today]:
I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and
I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of
the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks
it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the
skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a
college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men
and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to
pursue the American Dream.
Also in military benefits news, the House Armed Services Committee approved next year's defense spending bill which includes a 3.9 percent pay raise for members of the military.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 29, 2008 10:41 AM
More than half a century after the GI Bill
was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and
advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a
number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among
them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this
statement on his Website:
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer
the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11,
2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to
veterans of the World War II era.
In a profile of numerous veterans
struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning
home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the
current GI Bill stands now. The problem is that these benefits can no
longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier
generations of veterans.
Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs
up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI
Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but
not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned
even if the benefits are unused.
About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson,
director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many
earn degrees.
An independent study found that just over half use some part of the
benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only
8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the
benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36
months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That
means going to school full time, year-round.
Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 23, 2008 09:57 AM
A trial in U.S. District Court is now underway as a group of veterans
challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs over the lack of care
afforded to returning troops. The case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, is said by the plaintiffs' attorney to be the first of its kind. Yesterday a suicide expert testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that veterans are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population. The American Lawyer has a good summary of what the case is all about:
The suit claims that many disabled combat veterans are in dire need of
counseling and other services they are not currently receiving from the
U.S. government. Erspamer [the plaintiff's counsel] estimates that 120 veterans who served in
Iraq or Afghanistan commit suicide each week. The veterans' groups are
not seeking monetary damages but want reform of a health care system in
which they allege a huge backlog of cases prevents veterans from
receiving timely care.
The
San Francisco Chronicle outlined what suicide expert Ronald Maris sees
as a complete lack of readiness within the VA to deal with the great
number of veterans suicides:
A majority of the VA's
counselors, doctors, social workers and psychologists "don't have the
tools and the information that they need to intervene effectively with
suicidal vets," said Maris, a former president of the American
Association of Suicidology who has been a consultant to the Army on
suicide prevention.
He was particularly critical of the VA's top health care
administrator, William Feeley, who said in a pretrial deposition April
9 that the agency has no systematic national plan for suicide
prevention. Feeley also said he was unaware of any methods of tracking
veterans at risk of suicide and that suicide rates "are not a metric we
are measuring."
The impact of the trial is being felt in Washington, D.C. where two U.S. senators are now calling for the resignation
of the VA's chief mental health official, Dr. Ira Katz. Senator Patty
Murray (D-Wash.) is citing evidence learned in the trial showing that
the VA withheld information on the rising number of veterans suicides.
As her statement reads:
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 22, 2008 11:25 AM
The army announced yesterday that the practice of "stop-loss," where a
solider is held past his/her enlistment contract, should continue for
at least another year. While military leaders are making efforts to
reduce combat tour lengths, and increase the size of the army, the Associated Press reports
there are roughly 12,000 soldiers serving under the stop-loss. The
numbers break down to: "6,800 active-duty Army, about 3,800 in the Army
National Guard and close to 1,500 in the Reserves."
USA Today breaks down the numbers even further, putting the latest stop-loss news into a wider historical context:
-In May 2007 the practice of stop-loss reached a three-year low of 8,540.
-"Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March."
-"Soldiers affected by stop loss now serve, on average, an extra 6.6
months...Key leaders at the
small-unit level — sergeants through sergeants first class — make up
45% of those soldiers. Soldiers typically enlist for four-year stints."
-58,300 soldiers have been affected by the stop-loss since 2002.
People have often asked me what exactly a stop-loss is --
especially after they hear it referred to as the "back door draft."
First, USA Today offers this concise summary of how the army views the
policy: "Stop loss can keep a soldier in the service if his or her unit
deploys
within 90 days of the end of the soldier's commitment. It is necessary,
the Army says, to maintain the integrity of units headed to war."
Second,
I sometimes use the example of my own unit on the eve of the invasion
into Iraq back in 2003. Most of us in my reserve unit enlisted under a
six-year contract. That meant that for six years were would actively
train with our home unit, and be subject to mobilizations if ordered by
the president. Afterwards, we would spend two years in the Inactive
Ready Reserve (IRR) during which time we would not train, but would
still "be on the books," in case the military needed more troops.
In
March 2003, when my unit got word it was heading to Iraq, a number of
marines were reaching the end of their six-year contract. Depending on
how long we stayed in Iraq, their contract might end while they were
over there. It was these marines who were subject to stop-loss. They
were senior members of the unit whose experience would be invaluable
during the deployment, and our company would be hurt if our numbers
decreased. So, they stayed and deployed with us; then left the
military after returning home.
Most did not complain about
serving past their enlistment contract. Their buddies were going to
war, and the stop-loss marines wanted to go with them -- and, at that
point, the war was still new. Many felt they'd miss out on a major
historical event that would go down in the history books. But, times
have changed, and the war is more than five years old. As James
Martin, a social work professor at Bryn Mawr College and retired Army
colonel, told USA Today: "These are the guys who bear the brunt of it.
They just get put back into the grinder continually."
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 16, 2008 01:49 PM
A selection of military news stories over the recent days:
The Associated Press reports
on troubles with training the Iraqi Navy and Marine Corps, and cites
recent issues with Iraqi Army troops fighting in Basra as indicative of
the overall training situation. As the rebuilt Iraqi navy is tasked
with defending the country's two vital oil platforms, the AP tells of a
disconnect between the reality of the situation and how it is perceived
by the navy recruits:
The day when Iraq alone can defend its shores — and protect its critical offshore oil installations — seems remote.
Iraq’s
navy now has five Chinese-made patrol boats and 26 fast-attack aluminum
vessels — fewer than half of which are operational. Its personnel
number about 1,350, including 350 Marines.
“They think they are
an elite unit, but they are not,” said Capt. Jock Alexander of the
British Royal Marines, who is in charge of training Iraqi Marines to
guard the 1.8-mile exclusion zone around each of the country’s two oil
platforms.
The struggle to build a credible Iraqi navy is
mirrored — on larger scales — by the mounting delays and costs to form
a new Iraqi army and air force after Washington disbanded Saddam
Hussein’s military.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports
on a series of grass-roots efforts aimed at joining Iraq veterans in
need with U.S. citizens ready to help. Among the programs are an
upcoming online forum of therapists around the country who've offered
their services to treating Iraq veterans. Many of these therapists
have committed one hour of free counseling to Iraq vets per week, for
as long as they wish. Then there's a series of Websites dedicated to
linking vets with people willing to donate money for basic
necessities. Still, the VA is hesitant to get on board with these
groups:
While Veterans Affairs
officials appreciate the support of community groups like Bobrow's,
they're careful about embracing them. Because of privacy regulations,
the VA can't disclose who has used their services. Often, VA employees
are reluctant to even hand out flyers from fledgling groups until
thoroughly checking them out.
"The veterans and their families have suffered enough. So when they
put up a public profile or say they need help, we want to make sure
they don't get injured again," said Patricia Matthews, a spokeswoman
for the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Center.
In a profile of Elise Forbes Tripp,
author of "Surviving Iraq: Soldiers' Stories," the Portsmouth Herald
News details some of her most interesting findings through interviews
with Iraq vets, including this one:
She was surprised at the men being upset at
having women in their units. "I would get long responses about how
useless women are in war ...; not sexist but how they don't belong
there."
Men said they created sexual tension
and diverted attention. They require involvement from male colleagues
for their safety, for example, having to guard their showers or to calm
them during a difficult time. "And I think they felt it was unfair that
woman could get pregnant and go home," she says. "I was just listening,
thinking this is amazing."
The New York Times reports that Donald Rumsfeld is set to pen his own memoir:
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
who resigned as secretary of defense in late 2006, will write his
memoirs for the Sentinel imprint of Penguin Group USA. Mr. Rumsfeld,
75, will cover not only his years in the Bush administration but also
his experiences with Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Ronald Reagan;
his work in the private sector; and his early life. In contrast to
other recent political figures who have produced memoirs, Mr. Rumsfeld
is forgoing an advance and will donate profits to a nonprofit
foundation he recently established to make educational grants to young
people interested in public service and establishing links between the
United States and Central Asia.
The Marine Corps Times reports
that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is proposing new measures that
would provide homes for severely injured veterans on VA property. The
proposal came during a Senate defense appropriations subcommittee
hearing where issues of long-term veterans care were raised. Sen.
Feinstein cited VA property in West Los Angeles that includes 300 acres
of undeveloped land:
Feinstein said she offered VA’s West LA campus as an example because
she often visits the site, but she believes such housing also could be
built at other VA facilities around the country.
Feinstein and
other California lawmakers have been trying to block VA from leasing
out the unused land for commercial purposes, but they have not agreed
on what to do with the property. Some want the land to be public park
land, some have proposed building housing for homeless veterans and
others have talked about leaving it completely undeveloped so it can be
used by future generations.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 3, 2008 11:12 AM
A group of seven U.S. senators introduced legislation yesterday that would expand Veterans Administration care with programs focusing specifically on female veterans. According to the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, the bill would also mandate available counseling for female victims of sexual abuse and trauma. The news service reported:
Two of the bill's sponsors, Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said they'd attended town hall forums for veterans where men were outspoken about their health problems, but women waited until after the meetings to whisper some of their concerns, including sexual assault.
"Women don't have to whisper to me anymore," Murray said.
The bill, titled the Womens Health Improvement Act of 2008, comes as the number of women using VA healthcare facilities is ever increasing. According to a press release by Sen. Murray's office, the VA estimates female patients will double in the next five years. The press release further quotes Sen. Murray:
“As the Department of Veterans Affairs works to ensure that those who serve our Nation are not left behind, it is essential for them to recognize the physical, mental and reproductive health challenges that face women veterans may require a different menu of services, delivered in a different way than the VA has grown accustomed to."
Writing on TheHill.com earlier this month, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) offered up a helpful set of statistics on just how many women veterans are out there serving, or having recently served:
Approximately 70,000 women have served and separated from military service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). Among this group, in 2006 nearly 37.2 percent, or 25,960 sought and received healthcare from VA since separation from military service — up from 32.9 percent (15,903) in 2005. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the prevalence of potential Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among new OEF/OIF woman veterans treated at the VA from fiscal year 2002 to 2006 has grown dramatically from approximately one percent in 2002 to nearly 19 percent in 2006.
Late last year in New Jersey, the VA opened its first sexual abuse treatment center focused exclusively on women. The VA's 15 other sexual abuse treatment centers also provide for male patients. As the Associated Press reported last October:
“There’s a lot of women who have residential needs who I think are less likely to come to the VA because it’s literally spending 24-7 with guys,” Miklos Losonczy, one of two VA psychiatrists behind the creation of the treatment center, told The Sunday Star-Ledger of Newark.
Losonczy worried that women veterans who need treatment might not be seeking it because “they think the VA is all men and wonder, ‘Why would I get my military sexual trauma treatment surrounded by men?”’
For a detailed description on Military Sexual Trauma (MST), check out this info from the VA.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 5, 2008 12:57 PM
Kieran Lalor is a former Marine reservist and Iraq veteran running
for Congress in New York’s nineteenth district. He’s also the founder
of Iraq Vets for Congress, a group of 14 Republican, pro-war vets running in districts from Maine to California.
Lalor,
32, and I spent many years together as rifleman in the same infantry
company based in upstate New York. We served in Iraq (although in
different platoons), and experienced the military’s transition into
wartime footing after 9/11.
I spoke with Lalor about our shared
military experiences, fallen comrades, his entry into politics, John
McCain, and how he’s hoping to make 2008 the year of Republican war
veterans elected to office. Excerpts:
SOLDIER’S HOME:
When we were over there in Iraq I barely thought about the politics of
it all. I had some sense of what was going, but didn’t pay to much
attention to it. Was it the same for you? When did you start really
thinking hard about the political aspect of the war?
LALOR:
Officially my campaign began on November 25, 2007, but it really began
on 9/11. One of my sisters worked in the north tower of the World Trade
Center. On September 11th I was living in here in Westchester, about 40
miles from Ground Zero. I was watching TV with a year of reserve duty
under my belt, so I was watching this as a U.S. Marine; watching our
country get attacked, wondering if my sister was dead or alive. I just
felt helpless. I didn’t ever want to feel that way again, and it just
woke me up. I realized our generation had a big challenge.
I
went through the 90’s and everything was hunky dory: a prosperous
economy, and at least the appearance of peace. I thought we were going
to have a free ride. Our parents' generation had the Cold War, our
grandparents had WWII and the depression. September 11th hit and I
thought, "OK, our generation has some work to do."
In Iraq I
don’t think I really thought about the politics except that I just
remember thinking of some of these pictures I had taken: the kids and
the American flag, the kids running up to us, or hanging out by the
gate [of our HQ]. If these scenes could have been brought home five
years ago the impression of the war could’ve been different here. We
got a lot of negative, and not a lot of positive.
It wasn’t
Iraq so much as the wider War on Terror that got me to run. My passion
became how do you secure a country of 300 million people, and protect
civil liberties.
Did anything specific happen while we were in Iraq that’s influenced your platform, or ideas about politics?
One
thing that informs my foreign policy view, and why I continue to
support the war in Iraq, is how we were running patrols 24/7 out in the
streets of Nasiriyah. We were being proactive. Well, the Italian
[coalition forces] relieved us, and their doctrine was react to
problems in the streets. And, they got hit [by a suicide bomber], and a
good number of them died. I think that the Italian strategy of
reacting, and staying home in the compound until something happened in
the streets, was basically American foreign policy up until September
11th. On a small scale our [rifle company’s] doctrine of being
proactive, and being omnipresent in the streets is what I believe is
the best post-9/11 foreign policy.
I asked Lalor about
Lcpl Glover, a very good friend of his who was killed in Iraq in 2006.
Glover didn’t serve with us in Iraq, but he joined the unit later and
volunteered for a subsequent deployment. He was killed along with
another Marine from our unit during a sniper attack in Fallujah. I wrote about his funeral for a post on Veterans Day last year.
Mike
Glover was one of my best friends, and in some ways I feel responsible
for getting him into the Marine Corps. I really feel like we owe it to
all those guys, especially Glover because I knew him so well. I don’t
want him to have died in vain. That happened three years after we got
back, and his death really made me more resolved. I talked to Glover’s
family a little bit about that aspect, and they don’t want his death to
have been in vain. I’ve also gotten calls from Gold Star Mothers and
Fathers saying thanks for carrying on my son’s legacy. It takes my
breath away, and I take it seriously.
I never talk about him in
a political context. I’m comfortable talking about him to you because I
know you. I told a story about him in a speech on Veterans Day, but I
asked permission from his family to mention him. But, he kind of
symbolizes all of the other guys [four marines from our unit killed in
Iraq from 2004-2006]. What’s ironic is that they all volunteered, and
didn’t have to go. It’s kind of eerie, but it says a lot.
Why did you form the group Iraq Vets for Congress?
To
help individual campaigns. If there are veterans who vote because a guy
is a fellow veteran, that individual person does that on his own. [I
formed the group] because politics has become a millionaire's game. A
high, high percentage of people in congress are millionaires. So, by
joining forces with other veterans we’ve been able to get more national
attention. We’re starting to break through nationally and what that
does it raise our individual profiles. And, the biggest thing is fund
raising. I have to raise more than a million dollars for this campaign.
I have about a hundred thousand so far, and my opponent already has a
million dollars.
Does the fact that McCain, another Republican veteran, is also running have any affect on your individual campaigns?
McCain
always brings out a lot of veterans who vote. He’ll bring out a few
thousand people that are veterans that don’t normally vote; that seems
to be a trend. Also, because of Iraq Vets for Congress I’ve been
contacted by the McCain campaign. What we offer him is 14 guys in
districts where there’s no republican Congressman. There’s two guys in
Ohio and two guys in Pennsylvania which are big states that you have to
win. We can help him, and he can help us. Also, we try to hammer home
that we want to make 2008 the year of the republican veteran. With
McCain on the popular ticket, the 14 of us, some other Vietnam vets,
and Gulf War vets running, that’s a theme we’re trying to build.
A
lot of people paint Republicans as chicken hawks: people who cheer lead
for war, but don’t want to put their lives on the line. Our campaigns
dispel that myth.
Is there a danger of placing too much of your campaign’s emphasis on the fact you’re a veteran?
I
don’t think that’s enough to get somebody elected, but it definitely
gets peoples' attention. There has to be a balance. You have to be more
than just a guy who served in Iraq.
What about the fact
that you were a reservist? We were called up twice on relatively short
notice, leaving behind or jobs, school, and families. What impact has
that had on you?
That kind of balancing act: living in a
couple of different worlds and being well-rounded, is very helpful
running for Congress. I’m not completely of the military mindset, which
I think is good. Being half in the military world, and half in the
civilian world gives you double the amount of perspective. I can see
the other side: what it does to employers, and what it’s like trying to
get back into the work force for example. Sometimes I’d go into
interviews and I’d feel like I was sitting in that chair because this
guy wanted someone to debate the Iraq war with–even though I had no
chance of getting that job.
How have people reacted on the campaign trail towards the fact that you’re a veteran?
People
have been pretty good. There’s been positive feedback. I don’t think
it’s enough to get elected. The Iraq war is a difficult issue for
republicans, and every republican is going to have to deal with it.
And somebody who’s served in Iraq can deal with it better than
anybody. When I get questions about it I say, listen: I risked my life
there, I lost friends there. If I thought it wasn’t making our country
safer I’d be the loudest voice saying that.
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 26, 2008 11:25 AM
Over at the IntelDump last Friday,
Phil Carter was urged by his readers to examine an anecdote Barack
Obama gave in the Democratic presidential debate the day before. In the
military community Obama's recollection of his conversation with an
Army captain about the use of captured weapons prompted curiosity,
skepticism, and disbelief. As Obama said:
I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon,
supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to
Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to
Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they
didn't have enough humvees.
They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier
to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by
our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad
judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we
face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead.
What's
got everyone talking is the idea that U.S. troops are so ill-equipped
that they are actually using the enemy's weapons to turn around and
fight the same enemy. My rifle company landed in Iraq in 2003 with
hardly any M240G machine gun ammo. The rumor was additional ammo was
graciously provided to the machine gunners by some Navy SEAL's. But
that was when the war first started. How about now?
Carter provided a few follow-ups which sought to fact-check Obama's comments. Here's what he found out through a friend:
I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in
Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured
or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a
Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber
machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare
parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told
me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan
counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for
the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition
requisition.
Then there was ABC News National Correspondent Jake Tapper who went straight to the Obama campaign staff seeking an interview with the Army soldier Obama referenced. The story checks out; but Tapper saw fit to elaborate:
They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both
before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.
"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were
supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was
usually just two."
So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.
Carter also pointed out this post on the National Review Online
which took issue with the idea that captains were commanding rifle
platoons; a job normally reserved for lieutenants. At one point I had a
captain commanding my rifle platoon; so, that takes care of that,
fact-check. Particularly in the Marine Corps Reserves, where officers
must complete a period of active duty service before switching to
reserve duty, you find hardly any Lieutenants. The result is that
higher ranks are sometimes taking up lower billeted job positions.
Finally, over the weekend, the Associated Press fact-checked
Obama's story. The article also mentioned that Sen. John Warner,
ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is
seeking information about the anonymous captain and his platoon. Warner
is looking to speak about the situation at the next committee meeting.
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 19, 2008 11:20 AM
As the only combat veteran among the remaining presidential candidates,
John McCain has a unique relationship to the current generation of vets
cycling home from the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do veterans
think of McCain? Are they inclined to hold him in higher respect, or
follow his candidacy with a more critical eye? Can he count on their
vote, or does he need to work twice as hard to assure them his plan for
Iraq is the right one?
VoteVets.org (which lists Gen. Wesley Clark on its board of advisers) has a prominent feature linked off the homepage titled "Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq."
The gist of their bullet-pointed argument is that Sen. McCain's policy
toward the Iraq war is too closely aligned with President Bush. Among
other points, VoteVets.org maintains:
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time.
McCain said winning the war would be “easy.”
Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war – repeatedly saying it would be over soon.
Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
In January VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz addressed the issue of Sen. McCain's military service:
John McCain is a true war hero, and we all respect his service. I don't
doubt for a second that he cares for our troops. But, every time he
opens his mouth, I'm less and less convinced that he realizes how
dangerous his off the cuff words would imperil our men and women in
harm's way, and our national security, if he said them as President.
Earlier this month the San Jose Mercury News took a look at a group of veterans
gathering at a California American Legion hall to cheer on Sen. McCain.
Doug McNea, a 60-year-old Navy veteran, told the paper he admires the
connection Sen. McCain can make with veterans of all wars:
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 5, 2008 11:57 AM
President Bush's release of his $3 trillion budget yesterday included a number of veterans' and military-related provisions. Here's a few of particular interest:
Pay Increase:
For 2009 the new budget seeks a 3.4 percent pay raise for current active duty service members. As the Military Times reports
this is the minimum raise allowed under federal law--and some advocates
are displeased with the projected numbers. Here's the paper's rundown
of sample salaries for the troops in 2009:
- An E-4 with more than three years of service now earns $1,949.10
per month; that would rise to $2,015.40 per month on Jan. 1 under the
Pentagon plan.
- An E-7 with more than 10 years of service now
earns $3,263.10 per month; a 3.4 percent raise would turn that into
$3,374.10 per month.
- An O-3 with more than six years of service
now earns $4,763.10 per month; that officer would earn $4,925.10 per
month with a 3.4 percent pay increase.
A Hospital
Veterans in the Orlando, FL area are
speaking out against what they perceive as the proposed budget's lack
of funds for a local VA hospital. As the Orlando Sentinel reports:
President Bush put $120 million in his proposed budget Monday for the
long-awaited Orlando VA hospital, but area veterans said they were
disappointed that more of the nearly $600 million needed will not come
right away. Michael Kussman, undersecretary of health at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, said $120 million is all the agency needs this year to begin
work on the facility...But area veterans are not so trusting after waiting years for a
hospital. Orlando is the largest metropolitan area in the country
without a VA hospital, forcing veterans to drive to Tampa or
Gainesville for care.
"What a disappointment," said retired Air Force Col. Joseph Kittinger,
a decorated veteran. "All of the politicians give lip service to the
veterans, but that is all it is, lip service." He added, though, that
the $120 million "is a start and better than nothing."
Long-term
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America took a long-term look at where it sees facets of the budget allocated for veterans ultimately ending up.
For veterans, the 2009 budget provides $47 billion in funding for
veterans’ health care, benefits, and other services. This reflects a
modest increase over 2008 levels. However, starting in 2010, the budget predicts sudden (and unrealistic) drops in costs for veterans’ care.
The administration’s argument is that the deaths of earlier generations
of veterans will reduce expenses, but this line of reasoning fails to
account for the dramatic increase in the cost of caring for Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans. This will push future budget expenditures up, not
down. Like the budget as a whole, the long-term accounting in the VA
budget is improbable.
Defense Budget
For the defense budget itself, USA Today provides a good summary of highlights covering where the money is intended to go:
•Increasing the size of the Army and Marine
Corps: $20.5 billion, an increase of $8.7 billion or 73%, compared with
2008. This year, the Army would grow to 532,000 soldiers, and the
Marine Corps would increase its ranks to 194,000. By 2012, the plan
would be complete, with the Army topping out at 547,000 soldiers, while
there would be 202,000 members of the Marine Corps.
•Aircraft and weapons: $45.6 billion, a $4.9
billion increase, that would include purchases of fighter planes such
as the F-22A Raptor and F/A-18 Hornet and unmanned aircraft like the
Predator and Reaper.
•Cyberspace security: The budget shows at least
$65 million for research and development projects tied to computer
security. Some elements of the effort are secret, and funding levels
are not disclosed.
•Pay and health care: $149 billion to increase salaries and fund health care. Military salaries would increase by 3.4%.
For an overall political view of how things are shaking out, the Associated Press provides this quick piece on reactions to the budget.
More
-
David Botti
|
Jan 24, 2008 03:18 PM
The veterans advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for
America is ramping up its criticism against Bill O'Reilly's recent
comments on homeless vets. Users of IAVA's website can sign an online letter protesting O'Reilly's statement that:
“They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there.
Okay? … If you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge,
you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”
O'Reilly
pulled presidential politics into the mix as well accusing John Edwards
of using the homeless veterans issue for his own political gain. Today a transcript
from one of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memos" was published on the Fox
News Website. It referenced an exchange between Edwards and David
Letterman:
DAVID LETTERMAN: Tell me a
little bit about your feud with Bill O'Reilly. Now there's a tough guy.
He's been on the show a couple of times. And he's a tough guy. What's
going on there? What's at the core of the feud?
JOHN EDWARDS:
Well, the core of the feud is I've been talking about homeless veterans
and the fact that we have a couple hundred thousand homeless veterans
who have no place to sleep at night. They're either in shelters...
LETTERMAN: It's embarrassing, isn't it?
EDWARDS:
It's incredibly embarrassing for America. Huge moral issue facing the
country. And he kind of went on his show and said that I was
exaggerating, making it up. And I think he got a lot of correspondence,
a lot of homeless veterans have been calling in.
LETTERMAN:
Well, you know what I've noticed about Bill O'Reilly — and he's a
marvelous communicator. But he's not — he doesn't really care much
about telling the truth.
O'Reilly then countered:
As Laura Ingraham might say, tedious. Edwards and
Letterman could not care less about the truth unless it fits into their
far-left vision of the world. Using homeless veterans to make a
dishonest political point is wrong. That's one of the reasons Edwards
is going nowhere in his campaign. The man simply cannot be trusted.
Recently the Associated Press reported on an interesting program giving wounded Marines and Navy Corpsmen job placement in the film industry. Working with the Wounded Marine Careers Foundationgives
these vets hands on training in the various aspects of filmmaking--even
the camera equipment can be modified to suite any injuries the
vets may have. As the center's co-founder Kev Lombard tells the AP,
the idea for the program came out of his own project:
Lombard came up with the idea for the foundation's Wounded Marine
Training Center for Careers in Media program after being asked by a
friend in the military nearly two years ago to document the stories of
wounded veterans at military hospitals.
"It wasn't our story to tell. It was theirs," he said. "So I said how about we teach them to tell their own story."
Throughout the story we follow one young wounded Marine who's
filming a mock scene of helmets atop inverted rifles set
as battlefield memorials to those killed. If movies about Iraq
will continue to be made in the future, his lens offers an idea of just
how valuable these aspiring filmmakers may be:
Frey focuses on the helmets, which sit near a box of blank ammunition.
For a moment he considers taking pictures. But then he decides against
it, saying later that the scene didn't look real.
More
-
David Botti
|
Jan 4, 2008 02:08 PM
In keeping with this week's theme of veterans and politics, today we'll look at a veteran who's seeking Florida's 22nd District in Congress. Former Lt. Col. Allen West isn't known so much for his stance on the issues, but for an incident in 2003 that got him kicked out of the Army. As the Military Times reports, West stands by his actions:
He was punished after admitting [in October 2003] that
two months earlier, he fired a shot from his 9mm pistol as he held it
next to the head of a recalcitrant detainee who West said had been
stonewalling interrogators at a base near Taji, just north of Baghdad.
But the cop quickly caved in after West's phony death threat.
After the gunshot, West recalled, the detainee screamed "ok, OK,
OK!" and gave up the names of three individuals who were then taken off
the streets, ending a cycle of roadside bomb attacks on West's men that
had been escalating the previous three weeks.
West said he knew firing the gun would probably end his career but nevertheless did it to protect his soldiers.
West was fined $5000 and forced to retire from the Army. He'll
be trying to unseat the incumbent, Democratic freshman representative Ron Klein,
whose campaign funds are vastly greater than West's. However, as Fox
News reports, West may be using dismissal from the Army as a reason
Florida citizens should support his candidacy--citing a loyalty
afforded to his soldiers by his actions. Of course, others may say his
interrogation techniques were harsh and illegal. But as West told the network:
It's about taking a stand for the country, and I
think that the entire episode in 2003 will let people know the measure
of a man that I am.
Among
conservatives this line of West's thinking may work. At the time of his
departure from the Army many conservatives rallied around West's
actions. As the New York Times reported in 2004:
The conservative media personalities and Web sites that raised money
for his legal defense portrayed a military hamstrung by concern for the
human rights of Iraqi detainees. The more than 2,300 letters and e-mail
messages that he received were mostly "thank you" notes for putting his
men first and resisting the pressure to treat suspects with kid gloves.
Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army supporting the colonel.
West isn't the only veteran vying for the chance to run against Klein. Mark Flagg, a former Navy pilot, will run against West in an August 2008 primary.
More
-
David Botti
|
Jan 3, 2008 11:32 AM
Yesterday we took at look
at four presidential candidates and examples of how veterans issues
factored into their campaigns. Today's post contains five more
front-runners:
JOHN EDWARDS: In November Edwards laid out a $400 million,
five-point plan to aid in treating veterans with PTSD. A main focus of
the plan is to allow veterans to seek mental care outside of the VA
system, and to increase the number of counselors available. As the Associated Press reports:
"I strongly believe we must restore the sacred contract we have with
our veterans and their families, and that we must begin by reforming
our system for treating PTSD. We also must act to remove the stigma
from this disorder," [Edwards said]...
...The VA currently has a backlog of as many as 600,000 claims, increasing
delays for initial treatment by up to six months, according to the
campaign. Edwards pledged the entire backlog would be eliminated by
Memorial Day 2009 - four months after he might take office - and would
cut the processing time by half.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Long before Huckabee enjoyed the
level of attention he has now, the candidate spoke to New Hampshire
voters in April about priority care for veterans [New Hampshire Telegraph]:
More
-
David Botti
|
Jan 2, 2008 12:34 PM
With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries approaching, I
thought we'd begin taking a look at how the candidates address veterans
issues. Whether a candidate's platform calls for an end to the Iraq war
or not, vets will continue to be a highly visible presence in American
life. Today and tomorrow we'll examine what the contenders are saying.
The first four:
More