January, 2006

By Greyhawk

In the blogosphere news seems to be "old" after about 15 minutes. But here at Mudville, we think the passage of time often reveals even more about a story than was immediately clear when it was new. With that in mind, it's time to take a look back at the year that was, as we reported it here. Like me, you might rediscover some forgotten stories here, or see some that you can't believe are already a year old. You might even find something you missed the first time around, back in January, 2006.

Let's start with a tip of the hat to the New York Times, who in that month published what may be the only accurate casualty report in the history of US media coverage of the Iraq war:

Of 16,472 wounded, 7,625 were listed as unable to return to duty within 72 hours.
<...>
Amputations are a feature of war, but the number from Iraq - 345 as of Jan. 3, including 59 who had lost more than one limb - led the Army to open a new amputation center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio in addition to the existing center at Walter Reed. Amputees get the latest technology, including $50,000 prosthetic limbs with microchips.

Most stories simply cite "x thousand casualties" (or "x thousand maimed") without explaining that most "victims" were back on duty a few hours later.

One of the reasons casualties in Iraq are so low is body armor - unprecedented advances in procurement and logistics ensured that gear was available to all troops in country. While to this day you'll still hear about GIs sent to war without proper equipment, when the Army tried to compensate those many troops who reportedly had purchased their own, very few took the offer.

Just 29 Army soldiers have sought reimbursement so far for body armor and other equipment they bought to protect themselves on the front lines.

So the narration had to change slightly: "If everyone has armor, it's not good enough."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims that hundreds of U.S. soldiers may have died "needlessly" in Iraq because of inadequate body armor and wants the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings into the safety of the standard armored vests issued to troops.

The Armed Services Committee did hold hearings - but prior commitments kept Senator Clinton from attending. She didn't really start the fire on this one, however. This (then-) new version of the armor uproar began when the organization Soldiers for the Truth obtained and released a copy of a classified military report detailing the vulnerabilities of the body armor (it doesn't protect every square inch of the wearer's flesh). The story was the biggest of the day in January 2006, and while now all but forgotten, the subsequent increase in successful sniper killings of US troops has been well covered.

For a lot of reasons, I still believe everyone could use better earplugs.

*****

In fairness, this may be one reason so few opted to seek reimbursement for gear purchased on their own dime:

Nearly three-fourths of military reservists called to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking home more money on duty than in their civilian jobs, according to a study on military pay released Wednesday.

Earlier stories on Guard and Reserve troops tended to focus on the hardships they suffered due to pay cuts experienced when switching from their civilian jobs to full time military duty. But by the end of the year politicians would grab headlines by claiming that only (or at least "disproportionate numbers" of) the poor and uneducated joined the military.

Somebody was certainly joining...

The National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon office that administers the Guard, issued a statement outlining a turnaround in recruiting and predicting that it would continue to rise this year. In the last quarter of 2005, the Guard signed up 13,466 recruits, above its goal of 12,605. It was the first time since 1993 that the Guard exceeded its goal in that period.

The if hot story in 2005 was recruiting shortfalls - the overlooked story was this

Army re-enlistments in 2005 were the highest they've been in five years, with more than 69,500 soldiers choosing to continue their service, the Secretary of the Army said here yesterday.

But this story pushed that one to the back pages:

Senator Jack Reed today joined former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry in a press conference for the release of the report "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk."

The report is a damning analysis of the effects of Bush Administration policies on our nation's military. By failing to adequately plan for post-conflict Iraq, failing to send enough forces to accomplish the mission with an acceptable level of risk, and failing to adequately equip the Americans sent into harm's way, the Bush Administration has put our ground troops under enormous strain that, if not soon relieved, will have "highly-corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force."
<...>
"For months, Congressman John Murtha and others have warned about the impact of the war in Iraq on our military, particularly our ground forces. The report prepared by Secretary Perry, Secretary Albright, and their colleagues supports these warnings and identifies the serious problems our military faces in recruiting, retention, and equipment readiness," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Speaking of John Murtha - he had his own story to tell - and it, too, pushed the realities of military recruiting and retention out of the news:

"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.

"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.

"Exactly right," said Murtha.

In spite of his efforts to reverse the trend, 2006 recruiting goals would be met.

But January was also the month Mr Murtha would get a bit of a surprise. He appeared at an anti-war "town hall" event organized by fellow representative Jim Moran. The two spent their time repeating the oft-reported mantra of Iraq - not enough armor, poor training, troops aren't getting medical care, only poor people join the army... in what they thought was a friendly environment. And as usual after such events, members of anti-war "veterans groups" (most are comprised of a mix of real and false veterans - more on that later) brought in for the purpose stood and praised their courage. But this time a surprise was in store. An actual local veteran was in the audience too - and he made his way to the microphone...

(Video via CSpan)

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Moran - who is one of the few congressmen supporting Charlie Rangel's call to restore the draft - responded quickly: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement. But, uhh... let's go over here." And he took the next question.

Our story on Sgt Seavey spread through the blogosphere, to talk radio, and on to television. But another veteran in attendance that night drew less attention.

Just before the end of the meeting, Vietnam veteran General Louis C. Wagner spoke on behalf of a friend who had been ignored by the congressman. Unfortunately Murtha had excused himself and departed a few minutes prior.

(Video via CSpan)

Hello Mr Moran I'm General Wagner. I'm here tonight, I decided to come at 7:30. And I'll tell you the reason I came at 7:30 is because I want an answer to a letter, to a friend of ours. She wrote this letter to Mr. Murtha, where she pointed out to him that he was causing the insurgents to bring more activity against the soldiers in Iraq, just as the traitors did during the Vietnam war. I was fighting in 1972 with the Vietnamese when people were cavorting with the North Vietnamese.

Her son was killed today.

I got the message at 7:30 tonight, and I'll tell you, I wasn't going to waste my time coming here because I knew the trash that was going to be put out. But I'm really mad. Because what is being put out is being used to incite the insurgents to continue this war, just as it incited General Giap to consider the Vietnam war.

He hasn't answered her letter, Mr Moran, but I want to read a paragraph to you. I think its a little instructive:

"I have faith in our military leaders and believe that they are making the necessary steps to train the Iraqi forces and provide for our eventual withdrawal. I also have faith in our executive branch, that they are taking the necessary steps to help the new Iraqi government to get a democratic style government in place and to give them at least a chance of success. Although mistakes were made in the execution of the war and its aftermath, the goal itself is worthy, and in spite of all the negativity that we are constantly bombarded with I believe that there have been some remarkable successes.

"Although my son would surely" - and this, incidentally, this is the one that was killed today - "would surely prefer to stay home with his wife and four young children" - from 10 to 2, I'm adding that - "he is both a soldier and a scholar, he understands that we are in a vital long term struggle against a dangerous ideology, and he is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to defeat it. It is a difficult struggle and will require patience and fortitude both on and off the battlefield. If we lose our will at home, it makes the task for our soldiers all the more difficult. I believe your comments were irresponsible and are contributing to the loss of national will. If they were made to obtain political advantages I would find that abhorrent and unworthy of a former Marine."

Sir, I'm mad. Because that is happening every day when I read the newspapers. I visit Walter Reed, and talk to the young soldiers with their legs blown off. I know you do too.

I can't find one in a dozen that don't believe that they are fighting for a noble cause and are fighting to go back. And I think it's a disgrace when members of our congress, just as they did in 1975 when they sold out the South Vietnamese, are selling out our soldiers today in Iraq.

Thank you sir. (no applause)

Moran stumbled to respond, but eventually began reciting talking points, noting that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11:

Well... uh... Ge.. General... uh.. uh.. we're not gonna end... uh... I'll respond.

But..., um... I.. I do respect your point of view, I know it is widely shared. Uhh... and, um..., and I respect your service in the military.

Uhhh.. I do support the troops, and I do believe that the best way for me to support the troops is to make sure that when they do go to war its a war that needs to be fought. Uh... I... (applause) I... In response to the first two... I don't want the applause, because its going to be interpreted that I'm appealing to the audience. But the, uh... with regard to having faith in the troops I do have faith in our troops, and... uh... but with regard to having faith in uhh... the government that sent them, I don't, and the reason I don't is because they deliberately... is because the reasons that we were giving... given to go to war in Iraq were not accurate, uhhh, and, um, uh, and uh we have now found that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, there wasn't reliable evidence that he did. He was not a threat to the United States despite any number of attempts in any number of speeches to uhhh... tie Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11 he had nothing to do with it. So our going into Iraq was not in response to any attack, or even real threat to the United States, and it seems to me it uhh... it failed on that and any number of other reasons for being a war that was of necessity.

Elsewhere, other surviving family members of the fallen were ignored, too:

Few readers here will forget Robert Stokely's moving tribute to his son Mike. Shortly after we published that the Washington Post ran a piece titled "A Life, Wasted" written by the father of a Marine who was killed in Iraq.

At the time I recall thinking of the contrast between the two stories - and their placement. Probably nothing better defines the divide between the old guard media and the blogs - I would have published either story here. (In fact, a link to the Washington Post story was included in that day's Dawn Patrol.) But apparently the Post is a bit more choosy in what they present.

It seems Mr Stokely saw that Washington Post column too, and submitted his story to them. They rejected it, explaining "we rarely publish pieces that have been published elsewhere or have been widely circulated." That criteria having been met here, it would seem.

It wasn't just "big media" that shoved the troops and their families aside. A socialist "for the troops" website ignored a request for removal from a soldier whose photograph they had appropriated for their own use. We'd meet them again later in the year.

*****

In the USA, January meant election year was getting under way...

President Bush prepares for next week's State of the Union address, he faces widespread discontent over his job performance and the nation's direction that could threaten his party in the 2006 election, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

In the survey, 43% of Americans said they approved of Bush's performance as president — his weakest showing ever in a Times poll.

But...

Just 36% expressed a favorable opinion of congressional Democrats, whereas 45% viewed them unfavorably. That's statistically the same as the showing for congressional Republicans, who were viewed favorably by 38% and unfavorably by 44%.
<...>
But other measures point toward a continuing Bush advantage on security questions. When asked who could do a better job of protecting the nation against terrorism, 45% picked Bush, whereas 32% chose congressional Democrats. Independents give Bush a decisive 19-percentage-point edge.

Similarly, 52% said Bush's policies had made the nation more secure, whereas 21% said he had left the nation less secure — and 25% said he had made no difference.

Republicans probably felt a bit confident back then.

Although not up for re-election, Senator John Kerry had a comeback plan. Although this was on his campaign website in 2004...

In light of the unacceptable statement about the death of Americans made by Daily Kos, we have removed the link to this blog from our website. As John Kerry said in a statement earlier this week, “My deepest sympathies are with the families of those lost today. Americans know that all who serve in Iraq - soldier and civilian alike - do so in an effort to build a better future for Iraqis. These horrific attacks remind us of the viciousness of the enemies of Iraq’s future. United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail.”

In January, 2005 he published his first essay on that very same Daily Kos.

I’m glad I can be a part of this – and frankly I’m not worried about taking some slings and arrows along the way. I’ve faced worse!

*****

Meanwhile, back in Iraq...

Interesting developments in Anbar Province:

Ramadi's Sunnis have formed a provincial security council of local leaders, and at least one key sheik has expressed regret publicly for having allowed into the local anti-U.S. resistance such extremist elements as al Qaeda in Iraq.

Residents of the area were turning against al Qaeda. In the Arab media this would be depicted as exactly that...

The Anbar tribes’ campaign to rid the province of Zarqawi’s terror organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq is in its 2nd day and so far, 270 Arab and foreign intruders have been arrested.

In the U.S. media, reports would explain that insurgents were fighting among themselves:

In Ramadi, in western Iraq, he said, armed clashes have erupted between local Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda operatives in recent months. At least one high-ranking al-Qaeda member, Abu Khatab, was recently run out of Ramadi by insurgents loyal to the local tribe.

Things weren't looking too good for al Qaeda in Iraq. Following three elections in 2005, negotiations on the formation of the nation's new government were getting under way. As with John Kerry, drastic measures would be needed to turn the situation around.

*****

In book news...

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria secretly incited Iraq's top Shia leader to declare holy war against US and British forces, according to Washington's former administrator in the country.

In his new book, My Year in Iraq, Paul Bremer said he heard the explosive intelligence in October 2003 as sectarian tensions soared across the country following the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The report came from an extremely senior source, the supreme leader of Iraq's majority Shia community, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

And that was January in Mudville. Eleven more to go...

Beginning with February, and that starts right here.

(And 12 next year. Hey, somebody's gotta do it!)

Posted by Greyhawk / December 21, 2006 11:30 AM | Permalink