 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
First some inspiration - Cassandra reminds us that part of what Valour IT seeks to accomplish is the return of hope, and an affirmation that wounded troops aren't helpless victims - they're warriors, and uncommon valor is still a common virtue.
For those who contribute, 100% of your donation will go towards helping wounded vets fight the longest of long wars. Show men like triple amputee and Valour IT laptop recipient Sgt. Bryan Anderson that America still honors their sacrifice.
And now the Valour-IT Auctions have begun. I'm sure there's something there that will suit your fancy and help a wounded warrior at the same time.
For Baseball fans - some Nolan Ryan memorabilia: a AUTOGRAPHED Baseball and a couple of other autographed items are also listed separately.
One-of-a-kind, signed original artwork by Day by Day artist, Chris Muir.
A couple limited edition Navy lithographs (listed separately); Galloping Ghost of the China Sea, signed by artist Ted Wilbur and Medal of Honor-winner Rear Adm. E.B. Fluckey, and 'Victory Over Guadalcanal', signed by artist Ted Wilbur and Medal of Honor-winner Joe Foss.
And many military books that will make for some interesting reading.
Nothing in the auctions interest you yet? Check back regularly, we'll have more items available soon! (Or Donate directly today!!! OR adopt a Soldier today, there are currently over 1900 Heroes Waiting for Adoption!!!)
As the scheduled November 7 second round election date draws near, last minute efforts to replace the Karzai government in Afghanistan are moving into high gear.
From London:
Dr Abdullah Abdullah is meeting his main allies in Kabul today and tomorrow to discuss his options after failing to strike a power-sharing deal with Mr Karzai in talks this week, according to sources in both camps and Western officials.
They said that it seemed increasingly unlikely that Dr Abdullah would stand in the run-off, because his staff were not even campaigning, and that without a power-sharing deal he was more likely to boycott in anger than withdraw gracefully.
The Times report acknowledges that Dr Abdullah's decision "will also dictate to a large extent whether President Obama decides in the next few days that he has a credible enough partner to send more troops to Afghanistan as part of a new counter-insurgency strategy." For their part, the Obama administration has taken several steps this week to increase pressure on Karzai, and today's stateside reports claim Abdullah's decision to withdraw is all but made.
Our Valour-IT team leaders are dressing up for Halloween again this year. We'll do just about anything to get donations for our wounded troops.
To start off with, we have the Marine Team known for their battlefield prowess and oh so sharp uniforms.
The Navy Team known for their Destroyers and Nuclear vessels.
Then we have Team Army... Don't ask.
Saving the BEST for last we have the Air Force Team, known for their Predators and Bombshells, whose logistics systems based on this mission are the most sophisticated.
Wait for it...
Wait for it...
Trick or Treat boys. Who wants to fly with us? Come on, just click the picture. She won't bite...much.
Yes, again, I have no shame.
Check out our totals below the fold. We're currently kicking some Navy arse.
Now let's Aim High and be One Over all!!!! DONATE TEAM AIR FORCE!!!! and help our wounded vets fight their most difficult battle yet.
...the Obama at Dover story. (Bumped - see update)
Oops! The New York Times original report on the president's midnight trip to Dover said:
The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste....but somebody didn't like that. The new version (hat tip to Nice Deb) reads:
The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
...which undeniably does a great job of conveying to Americans that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste - without saying that's the intent.
The original quote can still be seen in part if you enter the deleted phrase in a Times search window - but that likely won't last long. Here's a screen capture for posterity (click for a larger version):
Too bad the USAF doesn't "do" nose art any more - because I think Chris Muir's Valour-IT artwork:
...would like great here:
One of these days, maybe.
In the meantime, some great posts from other Team USAF Valour-IT members.
Not Your Average Brooklynette says Hey You...Do Something
One Happy Dog says It is Time to Battle
OPFOR says Support Team Air Force!
The Watch Cat says Stress level's high
Andy's Place is Passing The Plate...
The Force behind the Force, One over All. Go Team Air Force!
And from our friends at Soldiers Angels:
Soldiers' Angels put Valour-IT to work this week at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) in Texas! Thanks to a grant that must be used in Texas, SA was also able to give printers along with the laptops
The military caseworkers who work closely with us at BAMC to identify patients in need of the laptops or other technology.
Angels, a caseworker (Opal Riera, on the right), and SA Board of Trustees member Jim Riley (2nd-from-the-right). Notice the printers that came from a grant specifically for Texas, and the laptop bags.
You can see that he already has a Valour-IT laptop; notice the attached headset hanging on the laptop screen and the just-delivered Blanket of Hope still rolled up on his right.
"I have become more mobile in my rehabilitation, and the laptop is absolutely one of the tools that I have in my recovery toolbox." - Valour-IT Recipient
Delivering over 4100 laptops so far, Valour-IT assists the wounded in reclaiming a bit of wholeness and independence in the face of life-altering injuries, repeated surgery, painful physical therapy, and the isolation of the hospital room. A high-quality laptop can help reestablish personal dignity and reconnect them with the world.
Every bit helps, and all funds will go directly to Project Valour-IT to purchase the laptop that helps provide independence and freedom to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines as they recover.
...and the bartender says, "is this a joke?"
Or how about this one:
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has said policymakers need to offset the costs of any new troops in Afghanistan, adding that raising taxes should be seriously considered. Do you agree?
On the day of the president's visit to Dover the original press release from the Air Force announced two of 15 military families had authorized media coverage - the day after it was updated to list only one. Here's why:
Bates' name was on an Air Force list released Wednesday of soldiers whose families had authorized media coverage of a soldier's return. It did not list his unit. The family later reversed the decision.
PFC Brian Bates is survived by his wife, 2-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son.
Our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of the fallen, now and always.
More:The wife of Army Pfc. Brian Bates, who died Tuesday in Afghanistan, said she changed her mind and decided against allowing coverage after learning by phone around 11 p.m. EDT Wednesday that Obama would attend.
"Brian met the president, and that's all that matters," Enjolie Bates, who was not at Dover for the transfer, said in a telephone interview from her home in Lakewood, Wash. "I know he would like that. We didn't need to broadcast it to the world."
"Brian met the president. And that's all that matters. I know he would like that," his wife, Enjolie Bates, said in a telephone interview from Lakewood, Wash. She said Bates loved his job and the Army.
"He liked the idea of fighting for his country. He thought that's worth it. He believed in it," she said.
He planned to make the Army his career, said his grandmother, Marlene O'Briant Tully of Gretna.
<...>
Tully said her grandson, whom she raised along with his 17-year-old brother, called her weekly. He talked to her Saturday and to his wife on Monday, she said.
<...>
About the president's decision to meet the airplane, Tully said, "He ought to be there for every last one of them." A bit later, she said, "Obama needs to do something. Our kids are just dying. For what? What kind of war is this? We're not trying to win."
Here's a post from a Gold Star mom that echoes that last thought. (And after you've read that, read Then He Smiled At Me - it's one you'll never forget.)
(Updated/bumped from 2009-10-29 17:46:46)
...instructions for which are in this video:
I'm working on my own entry, but we'd be glad to post any entries here. I'm sure other Team Air Force members would, too.
(Bumped)
Yesterday: "Maybe next year's headline will be Victory for America over Jack Murtha."
Nearly half the members of a powerful House subcommittee in control of Pentagon spending are under scrutiny by ethics investigators in Congress, who have trained their lens on the relationships between seven panel members and an influential lobbying firm founded by a former Capitol Hill aide.
The investigations by two separate ethics offices include an examination of the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), as well as others who helped steer federal funds to clients of the PMA Group. The lawmakers received campaign contributions from the firm and its clients. A document obtained by The Washington Post shows that the subcommittee members under scrutiny also include Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) , C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).
But that's part of a bigger story:
House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.
The Washington Post story notes that "The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations."
However,
The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.
A warning was quickly sounded: "Shortly after 6 p.m. Thursday, the committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), interrupted a series of House votes to alert lawmakers about the breach."
In other news, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin announced that "The United States should follow Britain's lead on Afghanistan, tying a modest troop increase to a major expansion of local forces and an anti-corruption drive in Kabul".
Which is close to what we're actually doing anyway. No one would argue against an anti-corruption drive in Kabul or elsewhere, and our opportunity to lead by example is certainly welcomed and well timed.
Update - swift justice! The purges begin:
A committee statement about the security breach said a junior staff member, working from home, improperly placed a document listing all the continuing inquiries into a file-sharing software system to which people outside the committee had access. The staff member, whose name was not released, has been fired, and committee officials said Thursday that they did not know who had gained improper access to the document.
Disclaimer: That's a New York Times quote - we can't guarantee it won't later be re-written to say something completely different.
More than 40% of President Obama's top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
WASHINGTON - On Oct. 21, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a solicitation for temporary contractor support to assist in processing the increased volume of education claims received since implementing the new Post-9/11 GI Bill.
"This contract will assist VA in delivering education benefits to our Veterans as quickly as possible," said Under Secretary for Benefits Patrick W. Dunne. "Veterans are depending on VA to provide the benefits they earned through their service to our nation. We will do everything in our power to minimize delays for our Veteran-students."
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which went into effect on August 1, 2009, has generated an unprecedented number of new applications. When combined with the standard high volume of school enrollment claims in August and September (normally, the busiest months for education claims), the number of claims has exceeded anticipated levels.
The contractor will provide its own work site and personnel to perform claims processing tasks. Contract staff will validate enrollment information provided by schools and provide recommendations on claim status to VA personnel, who will finalize claims decisions and generate payments (if applicable).
All work will be reviewed and authorized by VA personnel. VA will provide training on security and claims processing procedures. The contract personnel will assist in handling the least complex cases, which allows for rapid implementation of this initiative.
Following numerous reports of problems, the VA announced in September that
VA has over 900 personnel processing education claims. To address the large fall enrollment workload, employees are working overtime, and VA has rehired retired claims processors to provide additional processing support.
I applied for my certificate of eligibility last August - no response yet. Perhaps this latest step will speed things up.
From the pool reports on the president's midnight trip to Dover:
POTUS' final scheduled event was a 6:05 p.m. reception commemorating the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. When it was over, the in-town pool was asked to stick around. Only late in the night did the reason become clear.
Actually, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a part of the defense spending bill (not to be confused with Cash for Clunkers and a few billion in pure pork that were part of the supplemental '09 budget for Iraq and Afghanistan). Even after stripping "the administration's request for growing the Afghan forces by $900 million" the total for this year's model is $680 billion.
The act authorizes $550 billion for the Pentagon's base budget in fiscal 2010 and $130 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That compares to a total of $654 billion for both accounts in fiscal 2009.
That from the New York Times report headlined Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby, which explains that "the administration has had to make some compromises, and some issues remain to be decided in a separate spending bill."
Mr. Obama had wanted to cancel an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new plane that is expected to be a mainstay for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. He had also threatened to veto the military bills if they took money from plane purchases to keep developing that engine.
But Congressional leaders say they believe that the second engine will provide crucial insurance for the $300 billion fighter program. And they say they will take money from other parts of the military budget to save it.
My understanding was that "victory" is a bad word, but now that Obama has achieved that over the military lobby, perhaps he can take aim at congress? Previously:
"Republicans and Democrats have 59 earmarks in the funds slated to pay for troops' essential needs, according to a CNN count". (Elsewhere in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act the anti-pork group Citizens Against Government Waste reports 809 projects totaling $9.3 billion. When congress "debates" whether we can "afford" effective strategy in Afghanistan, these are the "costs" they consider.)"Every dollar that we are forced to spend on things which we do not need requires us to take money from things which we do need. And the people who lose in that trade-off are our troops and the taxpayers," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary."But it's not only the Pentagon's decisions," Senator Olympia Snowe explained, "There are several branches of government. Legislative branch is one of the three. And I think it's a mutual decision-making process."
Maybe next year's headline will be Victory for America over Jack Murtha.
As the Obama administration debated resource requirements, October became the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war.
Even before the "record numbers" the president's approval ratings on Afghanistan were in free fall:
In previous polls, Obama received some of his highest ratings in relation to his dealings with Afghanistan, including 63 percent approval in April of his handling of the situation there. In the latest poll, 45 percent approve, down 10 percentage points in the past month alone, and 47 percent disapprove, an increase of 10 points. Nearly a third of those surveyed say they strongly disapprove.How to turn the situation around? Some say more troops, some say change strategy, others say withdraw - but someone in the White House got the bright idea that now would be a good time for a photo op.
A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.It should have been a "good" day for the project; "This week alone, about two dozen soldiers have died in attacks and accidents." But while the remains of 15 soldiers and three federal agents arrived at Dover while the president was there, only one family elected to participate:
<...>
The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.
The other families chose not to, officials said, under a new Pentagon policy that lifted an 18-year ban on media covering the return of U.S. service members killed in action if families provide permission.
In the six months since the Obama administration lifted the Dover photo ban "258 families were allowed to choose whether they wanted the media present, 60 percent said yes, according to the military."
But just because families consent to coverage doesn't mean news organizations are always interested. After First Amendment advocates fought for the right to document the arrival of the flag-draped metal caskets, dubbed "transfer cases" by the military, there are often just a handful of journalists on hand. More than a third of all ceremonies open to the media in the first six months were covered only by the Associated Press.
Perhaps better days lie ahead.
I'd like to give a big thanks to Ed Morrissey of Hot Air, first for starting his show off with fellow team member James Hooker's song "Callin All Clans Together" - and for having Greyhawk and Soldier's Angel Greta Perry on to promote Valour-IT. You can listen to the recorded program here.
Since I mentioned James Hooker I might as well remind you:
The songs on this page were written and recorded by me, James Hooker 7 Star Commanding General USAF, SDTTSSSC (Super Duper Tippy Top Secret Strategic Songwriters Command) ALL of the songs you find here during this fundraiser are free downloads until 12 November, 2009. The album is slated for release early December. Then you have to feed me! All I ask, for now, is for you to hit the blue Team Air Force button, or, those Army, Navy, Marines guys. It all goes into the same pot! Thanks. -James Hooker
Team member, Sul dog talks about what changed him forever and how Valour-IT gives back the world to someone who's lost it.
Long time team member Mary Katherine Ham says Give a Wounded Vet a Lifeline This Week
My tweety friend, Elen Grey, has a great post of "did you know" for Valour-IT and has been doing a fabulous job at tweeting Valour-IT @elengrey.
To all my Facebook friends thanks for your support and spreading the word about Valour-IT.
Maja shares with us Packers Fans Enjoy Tailgating Baghdad Style and that "there is no better time to show our service members that as a community we care for them and appreciate their service to our country."
Soldier's Angel, Laurie tells us why she loves the Air Force with cool videos and pics to follow
Delta Whiskey says it's time to represent!
Our friend Buck of Exile in Portales says "it may come as something of a surprise that the Air Force traditionally fights a rear-guard action in the Valour-IT fundraiser, meaning we always come in close to the bottom of the pack."
True; no respect, I tell ya.
As I write this I see the Air Force is at least beating the Navy, WOOT WOOT!, those scurvy dogs. Now let's AIM HIGH and beat those Jar heads and dog face soldiers, too. DONATE TEAM AIR FORCE!!!
Needs some inspiration? See how our Airmen are patrolling outside to protect inside:
Every day, the 532nd Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron's force protection patrols travel outside of Joint Base Balad to provide a security presence that aims to deter anyone who would do harm to the people who live and work here.
By patrolling the fields, farmlands and neighboring villages, it's a lot more difficult for insurgents to get close enough to the launch mortars or rockets at the base
I'll be highlighting other members again in the near future.
I'll end with a few reminders:
For you twitterers don't forget to Twitter: @valourit or #valourit
You can support Team Air Force by wearing our twibbon.
Here's the Official Valour-IT Facebook page
More news to come...
...the internet radio, that is. Talking Valour-IT with Team USAF's Ed Morrissey this afternoon - listen in at Hot Air via the link. (You can join the chat, even. Just don't tell the Marines.)
Unfortunately, after her last radio appearance Mrs G has been banned by the FCC*:
(Click here if your browser doesn't show the mp3 player above.)
Maybe we'll have time to talk music and art, too.
Update: As mentioned on the program, the above is a scaled-down version of Chris (Day by Day) Muir's donated artwork for this year's competition. The original, larger, signed edition will be up for auction next week.
And you can find James Hooker's page - with his songs available for download - here.
Team Air Force:
*The government's Fetish Control Commission
By the looks of it, this NY Times story was going to tell the whole truth:
The Great American Arm-Twist in Afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan -- By the looks of it, the ceremony that unfolded last week inside the Presidential Palace here was marking a joyous, even triumphant, occasion.
President Hamid Karzai, flanked by Senator John Kerry and an array of Western ambassadors, had just announced that he would accept the revised vote totals showing that he had not won re-election after all. The president's decision meant the Afghan election would go to a second round, one that Mr. Karzai could conceivably lose.
But rather than acknowledging the (thus far fruitless) Obama administration goal of establishing an Afghanistan government "power sharing" plan (with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah both on board), a new narrative was established: "It was only Senator Kerry's relentless efforts, and a round-the-clock lobbying press by American and European leaders, that staved off political disaster."
And that, ultimately, was the underlying message in the ceremony announcing Mr. Karzai's concession last week: Mr. Karzai may have agreed to follow the law -- he may have agreed to act in a democratic way -- but he did so only after representatives of the United States, the United Nations and the largest European countries all but pushed him onto the dais to do it.
But while Karzai obviously wanted to avoid a runoff election, his insistence on following the constitutional path is simultaneously:
But that was just a warning shot.
"When our trainees leave here and become Airmen, they're in better shape than most Marines are."
This is true. In fact, USAF Airmen, are now being made honorary Marines (in part to trick them into donating to the wrong Valour-IT team).
The Marine Corps moved fast to silence an Air Force military training instructor who boasted in a service-sponsored video that airmen are in better shape than Marines.Sergeant Major Kent wasn't the only Marine who felt the video was hurtful:
<...>
The video, forwarded around the Marine Corps via e-mail, reached Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent, who asked Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Roy on Thursday to have it removed.
"Needless to say, I was shocked when I checked my e-mail this morning," Kent said in a statement released to Marine Corps Times on Thursday. "I had numerous e-mails from privates first class through senior staff [non-commissioned officers] questioning the intent of this video. You have to understand, Marines are very proud, and they view statements like the ones in the video as an attack and will defend the honor of our Corps at all costs."
Chief Roy did the right thing and "ordered his staff to take it off the site immediately after reading Kent's e-mail and reviewing the video."
(Footnote/Notice to Airmen: The Mudville Gazette assumes no liability should you attempt to test this theory in the real world. We recommend donating to Valour-IT in the name of Team Air Force as a better way to beat the Marines.)
U.S. News and World Report's list of "America's Best Leaders" for 2009 includes Senior Non-Commissioned Officers.
Senior noncommissioned officers are taking on increasing levels of responsibility, particularly as American forces continue to engage in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and small units must patrol large swaths of terrain.
Also making the list: Ray Odierno, Commander, Multi-National Force, Iraq.
Day one PROJECT VALOUR - IT has raised $15,290.10. Each laptop costs $600, that's about 25 laptops but we need more. Each team's goal is $35,000. Help us reach that goal, we're off to a great start.
You already know Team Air Force has music - and tomorrow we'll unveil the art department. (Sneak peak ==>)
In addition to all that, we've got the Air Force baby:
Now we can't help the other teams suddenly achieve musical or artistic talent, but in the spirit of friendly competition we have created babies for them. (Yes - they don't know how to make their own babies.)
But don't feed them! donate to Valour-IT, Team Air Force and join Team Air Force here
AIR FORCE TEAM MEMBERS TO DATE, PLEASE VISIT THEM:
Ed Morrissey - Hot Air
John Noonan - OPFOR
Madhu - OnParkStreet
vw bug - One Happy Dog Speaks
Chris - Chris Short
Laurie - Soldiers Angels New York
Buck Pennington - Exile in Portales
Elen Grey - Could Be A Blog
Maja - Not Your Average Brooklynette
Paul - mean ol' meany
Mike - No Angst Zone
Delta Whiskey - Delta Whiskey
James Hooker - Homemade Sin
Moultrie Creek
Chris Muir - Day by Day Cartoon
The Carrier Project
Gazing at the Flag
Tink's Tribulations
Suldog
NoisyRoom
The Weekly Standard
Andy's Place
Reboot Congress
From remarks by the president to servicemen and women in Jacksonville, FL (emphasis added):
And while I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this -- and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan: I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. (Applause.) And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt. Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, and the defined goals as well as the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. We are not going to have a situation in which you are not fully supported back here at home. That is a promise that I will always make to you.
In other news:
When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.
Must be nice to just be able to quit when you want. I wonder if he'll be replaced by someone who can't.
Update: More insight on Zabul from Andrew Exum.
And: Curious, IMHO, that he resigned on September 10th, but it's only news now. Hoh states several reasons he expects failure in Afghanistan, but he dedicates most of his resignation letter to condemning Karzai and the Afghan government.
Deployed Airmen at Joint Base Balad collect items for wounded troops evacuated out of theater - who never have time to pack for the trip.
While important, the donated items are secondary - the most important thing the wounded warriors receive is the message that they aren't forgotten.
Click the widget below to donate via credit/debit card, e-check, or paypal.
If you don't see the widget link, click here.
And for those who didn't know - Team Air Force is the Underdog in this competition:
Soldiers' Angels has helped so many of our military forces. Now you can help them help our wounded.
The Valour-IT fundraiser competition official kickoff is Midnight tonight !!!! - Monday Oct 26th (The Day of the Deployed) and will run thru to Nov 11th (Veterans Day).
About Valour-IT:
Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery.
Mudville will be leading the Air Force team again for the 5th annual Valour- IT fundraiser Competition. You can join the best team, Team Air Force, whose logistics systems based on this mission are the most sophisticated.
AIR FORCE TEAM MEMBERS TO DATE:
Ed Morrissey - Hot Air
John Noonan - OPFOR
Madhu - OnParkStreet
vw bug - One Happy Dog Speaks
Chris - Chris Short
Laurie - Soldiers Angels New York
Buck Pennington - Exile in Portales
Elen Grey - Could Be A Blog
Maja - Not Your Average Brooklynette
Paul - mean ol' meany
Mike - No Angst Zone
Delta Whiskey - Delta Whiskey
James Hooker - Homemade Sin
Moultrie Creek
Chris Muir - Day by Day Cartoon
The Carrier Project
Gazing at the Flag
Tink's Tribulations
You can track our teams' donations by the widget in our upper right sidebar (or place the widget on your site).
If you have Facebook, jump right in and support Team Air Force.
Valour-IT Facebook page can be found here
The Valour-IT Blog can be found here.
You can also show your support with Team Air Force's Valour IT twitter twibbon. (And don't for get to tweet #valourit to promote team Air Force!)
If you don't have a blog there are other ways you can participate, like donating items for our auction, just email me (mrsg@mudvillegazette.com) and I'll give you the details.
WE LOVE TO HAVE MORE TEAM MEMBERS . Spread the word! So if you're interested in joining our team you can do so here.
While teams are divided along military lines, you need not have been in the military in order to help or join a team. This is a great way to unite communities in the blogosphere. So pick the best, the Air Force team. We'll welcome you as a member.
But if your heart belongs to one of the other services, the team leader for Army is BlackFive, the Captain of the Navy ship is Mary Ripley of the US Naval Institute, and the ladies at Villainous Company are leading Team Marine onto the beach.
You can join the team of your choice here.
Regardless of how you contribute, the technology your efforts help provide will have a positive effect in the recovery of our wounded warriors, reconnecting them with the world and helping them regain their confidence and independence. This wouldn't be possible without you.
For those unfamiliar with "Valour-IT Fundraiser Competition" , I've posted about it here.
Some previous posts:
Valour - IT, The Reality
Not just the "Air Farce" (Continued)
So let's get some birds in the air! Aim High! Join Team Air Force!
And if that doesn't make you want to join I have no shame in flaunting this cute Air Force baby
Soldiers' Angels has been designated a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity by the IRS. Donations are tax-deductible and may be eligible for matching funds from donors' employers (ask your employer). Consult your tax advisor for further information.
On CNN (video below).
Would have made for interesting television to hear him answer questions on his fraudulent votes in the Afghan elections, but that's not the message the Obama administration wants Americans receiving just now. We'll have to settle for Abdullah explaining his opponent's corruption, instead.
This looks like a great opportunity for Afghanistan and Iraq vets looking for challenge, adventure, and camaraderie - Outward Bound's reintegration wilderness expeditions. Fully-funded (including transportation to and from the locations) trips include canoeing in the Florida Everglades, kayaking the Alabama Gulf Coast, winter expeditions in the Colorado Rockies, Minnesota Dogsledding & Skiing, and sailing the Florida Keys...
OUTWARD BOUND EXPANDING FULLY-FUNDED NATIONAL REINTEGRATION WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS FOR VETERANS
Non-profit organization seeking interested veterans nationwide
Overview:
Outward Bound, a 45-year old national non-profit outdoor, adventure-education organization, is looking for OEF and OIF Veterans, interested in participating in fully-funded reintegration wilderness expeditions. Adventures are physically, mentally and emotionally challenging and work to build the self-confidence, pride, trust and communication skills necessary to successfully return to their families and communities following war time service.
Goals of the program are to provide a positive outdoor experiences for military veterans and their families that will enable them to experience the healing benefits of the natural world and benefit from quality environmental education.
- Who: Available to all OEF or OIF Veterans who were deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan, pending medical screening
- What: 5-7 day Wilderness Expedition: may include backpacking, rock climbing, canoeing, dogsledding, sailing, sea kayaking and white water rafting
- When: Dates available year-round
- Where: Wilderness locations include: California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Alabama, Florida
- How: What sets Outward Bound apart is that the goal is personal growth. The wilderness and the skills learned to deal with it are simply a vehicle for growth.
Cost: Veterans will not be responsible for cost of expedition including round-trip stateside transportation to course site. Funding provided by the Military Family Outdoor Initiative Project, a joint project of the Sierra Club and The Sierra Club Foundation.
Website: http://www.outwardbound.org/index.cfm/do/cp.veterans
AM 690 New Orleans, our friends Beth and Shelle join Greta to discuss the looming Soldiers' Angels Valour-IT fundraiser.
Not in New Orleans? Hey - this is the internet, listen online here.
Afterward (or right now), join Team Air Force!
Good stuff - quick videos designed as basic introduction to counterterror (CT) and counterinsurgency (COIN) - two approaches to the mission in Afghanistan:
More here - including accompanying text documents; again, basic, entry-level stuff.
I'd add only this: it's not an either/or debate, and what type of operation we conduct is not as much our choice as we might like to think:
We get to "choose" strategies to a point. Obviously, should some nation launch its nuclear stockpile at us we won't be considering counterinsurgency as response during flight time. Should North Korea send a few divisions of conventional forces south of the 38th parallel we'll meet that with infantry, armor, and airpower.
That said, in Afghanistan we are confronted with an insurgency (among other things) - or something close enough to it that arguments to the contrary amount to academic and semantic points. (There are people who delight in that.) We didn't go to Afghanistan to fight an insurgency, but if we stay there we will continue to be confronted with one. We can decide to leave, but if we stay there and fight that insurgency we will be conducting counterinsurgency - regardless of what we choose to call it. We don't get to vote on that - the insurgency does, and like ICBMs in the air or southbound tanks in the DMZ they are hard to ignore. Military doctrine can be established by the DoD (or component), decisions on what campaign (or operational-level) strategy and military tactics we use are best left to the appropriate combat commander*. Any of those will require adjustments to changing circumstances in order to be effective, but to a degree the overall "strategy" is what it is in as much as it's the enemy's choice.
<...>
But there's another consideration that "complicates" the strategy issue in the current discussions. Afghanistan is one part of what we used to call the Global War on Terror, which - regardless of what we call it - is a counterterror operation. Like counterinsurgency this requires a concerted civ/mil effort - with international law enforcement, financial, intel, and other components working to one common goal. In fact, the desired military contribution is smaller percentage-wise than in counterinsurgency, and consists primarily of shared intel, quick Special Ops-type missions, and air strikes. In Afghanistan in 2001 we went a step beyond that and brought a much bigger hammer down. Eight years on, the debate over whether that (or our subsequent decision to stick around) furthered our overall efforts or not remains unresolved - but counterterror operations (based there and elsewhere) are ongoing. There is no significant debate on whether or not to continue those efforts.
And if you think COIN is fluffy bunny warfare, read this.
Tom Ricks says this Boston Globe editorial ("Give up on Karzai") reminds him of "turning on President Diem, which turned out to be a bad move."
On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.
The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diệm and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[60] Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the U.S. ambassador.[61]
Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and death, Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."
A little admiration of the Kennedy style is a good thing - but all things in moderation, as they say.
Enough history lesson - here's John Kerry's hometown paper today:
Under pressure from Obama and Senator John F. Kerry, the Afghan president finally agreed to a runoff after supposedly winning a first round in which more than 1.2 million ballots were ultimately discarded as fraudulent. But this procedural intervention in Afghan politics does not go far enough. The United States should not be working to legitimize Karzai, but to replace him.
<...>
American officials should be seen conferring with Abdullah, who has a reputation for honesty and circumscribed ambition.
The problems with those recommendations include:
Imagine your response to the Government of China attempting to resolve accusations of ACORN-related vote fraud in the United States and you'll have some sense of how Afghans feel about their elections.
In other news, "U.S. President Barack Obama has held consultations with the American ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, on efforts to prevent voter fraud in the country's upcoming presidential election."
It's unfortunate they weren't ready the first time. (But... how could anyone have known?) In fact, they couldn't have failed more spectacularly - unless they wanted an election "tainted by corruption" - in which case, smashing success.
NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources to the mission.
Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan:
"The Karzai supporters in the south are very stressed because of the second round. They say that the foreigners are not giving Karzai his victory. But the maleks (village leaders) are very happy, because they will be making a lot of money again in the campaign. The common people, they will not vote. They did not vote before -- and the boxes were still full -- and they will not go now... We had hoped the election would bring change. That would have been good, but it didn't happen. So for that reason maybe we should have a second round. Even though there are problems, you should give us a second round. So they will understand that the nation has a right and that you cannot just rule over it as you wish." -- southern tribal elder.
Many more comments from actual Afghans here.
Next: Round two
So "a former Guantanamo detainee named Yousef Mohammed al Shihri was killed in a shootout at a checkpoint along the Saudi-Yemeni border", and the Senate's version of next year's defense budget prohibits "the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S. except for trial".
Meanwhile, Marilyn Manson, Britney Spears, and the "Meow mix jingle" have joined a host of other musicians in demanding (via FOIA) to know whether their music was used to torture prisoners there.
Considering the prisoners will likely soon be free to seek revenge that's probably not an entirely bad idea. And yes, "the Obama White House says it no longer uses music as an instrument of torture."
(All via the Dawn Patrol, where you'll also find the latest from deployed milbloggers around the world...)
And now for something completely different (and completely off the wall) for a Friday.
Before it became a George Clooney feature film, The Men Who Stare at Goats was episode one of a three-part BBC series by Jon Ronson called Crazy Rulers of the World.
And here it is. How much truth and how much imagination? You decide.
The Crazy Rulers of the World is the extraordinary, never before told story of what happened when chiefs of US intelligence, the army, and the government began believing in very strange things.
Three years in the making, Jon Ronson's Crazy Rulers of the World explores the apparent madness at the heart of US military intelligence.
With first-hand access to the leading players in the story, Jon Ronson examines the extraordinary - and plain bizarre - national secrets at the core of George W Bush's war on terror.
Ronson also wrote a book, titled The Men Who Stare at Goats
We'll presume the Obama administration is continuing the effort - otherwise Dick Cheney would have raised an uproar over the termination of the program, right? ;)
The remainder of part one of the series below.
*****
If you believe the Obama administration wanted a runoff election in Afghanistan, then you'll probably believe Fred Kaplan's Slate piece crediting John Kerry with the accomplishment; but even the Senator himself might be surprised.
The Obama administration wants Karzai gone - and a "power sharing" option with challenger Abdullah Abdullah (who only had a little over 200,000 votes declared fraudulent) was supposed to (and may ultimately) be step one. Even after the certified results were released Karzai enjoys a comfortable lead over Abdullah, one that isn't expected to dwindle significantly in a second round held in deteriorating weather with increased security concerns and voter apathy factored in.
Karzai has played this game before:
Karzai said he accepted the "national consensus" on the Aug. 20 date. But he rejected an opposition demand that an interim administration run the country between May 21 and the election, saying there is no such provision in the Constitution.
He said if the deadline for holding the vote is to be extended by four months, so too should his term in office.
"We have agreed on the Constitution and the Constitution says clearly that there should be a presidential election 30 days to 60 days before the ending of the president's working period," said Karzai, wearing a long black coat and a grey wool hat. "The president stays until the election date."
While the runoff is the constitutionally-mandated solution, the Obama administration wanted a "deal" between Karzai and Abdullah, and is left to put the best possible face on the situation.
Crediting John Kerry with the unwanted development is an interesting response - in many regards similar to crediting Joe Biden with developing military strategy. It's not entirely foolish, if things don't turn out as desired then the president won't be the first White House dweller to have others claim he was a victim of bad advice.
But credit Kaplan for offering something a bit closer to the administration's real view of Karzai, too:
President Obama is scheduled to travel to Asia on Nov. 11. He should make Kabul one of his stops. A former military officer who consults the administration on Afghanistan (and therefore asked not to be identified) has a modest proposal for his agenda.
Obama, he says, should give Karzai a poster-size photograph of Mohammad Najibullah hanging from a lamp post in 1996. Najibullah, of course, was Afghanistan's last democratic president before the Taliban killed him and took over.
Apparently there's a bit of a tug of war going on over that topic. "We were winning when I left" is a classic line for Iraq vets - I've even seen it on coffee mugs. Guess its time for an Afghanistan set, too.
Update: The White House fires back, "guns blazing".
Update two - audio clips from the argument.
And you're invited - a visit with some US Air Force front line troops:
The Air Force prefers to tout the contributions of its unmanned aerial fleet to the fight, but has boots on the ground, too.
But let's face it - this is what you really want to see - and they're the guys who make it possible:
And here's the latest airpower summary from CENTAF - one day's worth of close air support. (Contrary to mistaken popular belief, close air support has not been eliminated by "politically correct" ROE.)
(Part one here, part two here.)
The first indication that the Obama administration is unhappy with Afghan president Hamid Karzai's decision to accept a runoff election is this New York Times story - With New Afghan Vote, Path to Stability Is Unclear.
...diplomats immediately questioned whether a new vote could be arranged before the announced date of Nov. 7, and whether a second round of balloting would have more security or less fraud than the first, in which nearly a quarter of ballots were thrown out by international auditors. "There are huge constraints to delivering in the second round," said one Western official. "Can you deliver a result that is any different from the one we've already got?"
The answer to that last question is probably not. Prior to the IEC certification, second place finisher Abdullah Abdullah had received 27.7 percent of votes cast to Karzai's 54.6 percent.
Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission formally certified the vote Tuesday, and said Mr. Karzai had received 49.7 percent of the votes, higher than a foreign-led panel of experts conducting the audit had found, but still below the over 50 percent required to avoid a runoff.
While both candidate's vote counts were lowered ("As a result of the ECC's audit and recount process, the ECC has ordered the IEC to invalidate a certain percentage of each candidate's votes" - a fine point that, along with the actual spread, media accounts ignore*), Abdullah may have received a slight boost in overall percentage but still remains a distant second to Karzai. Turnout for a second round of balloting - mandated by Afghanistan's constitution in the event no candidate receives 50% of the total - is expected to be lower than that for the original elections due to weather, security, and waning interest, and Karzai is heavily favored.
And as Karzai points out (although the Times neglects this minor detail), the Afghan constitution is on his side:
"The coalition has no legitimacy and is not possible," he said, standing alongside Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who negotiated with Mr. Karzai for nearly 20 hours over 5 days to accept the results.
Still, the Times reports "Diplomats said the efforts to get the two men to join forces would now intensify." As for that nagging issue of a constitution - at least one work-around has been proposed: "officials said that if there was a deal it would likely involve Mr. Abdullah conceding to Mr. Karzai, in return for a major role in overhauling Afghanistan's Constitution to give the president less power."
"We have started preparing for a second round," Dr. Abdullah said, speaking at a press conference in his backyard in Kabul. "The results show the need for a second round. We will let the Afghan people decide -- I am committed to that."
<...>
But President Obama did not, Dr. Abdullah said, try to push him into joining a government with Karzai. "I am not under any pressure from the international community for any scenario," he said.
Regardless of Afghan voters, it's increasingly clear that the Obama administration has no desire to work with an Afghan government led by Hamid Karzai. (Earlier this week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs spoke of "the responsibility that all Afghans are going to have in both putting forward and -- putting forward a government that is viewed as, in the eyes of both, importantly, the Afghan people as well as the international community, as truly legitimate.") And it's likewise becoming increasingly clear that the DoD has no desire to be used as pawns in the game - seeing security in Afghanistan as a more pressing issue for both countries. (A view shared by most Afghans.) Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded additional warnings in a recent interview with reporters while on a Pacific trip:
U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates
The United States cannot wait for problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government to be resolved before making a decision on troops, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said.
Gates, speaking to reporters on board a plane traveling to Tokyo, described the situation in Afghanistan as an evolutionary process that would not improve dramatically overnight, regardless of what course is taken following the country's flawed August election.
"I see this as a process, not something that's going to happen all of the sudden," Gates said.
"I believe that the president will have to make his decisions in the context of that evolutionary process."
<...>
Gates said he was confident U.S. and NATO forces could provide security for a run-off, should one be decided, but added bad winter weather could prevent Afghans from voting.
More from Secretary Gates: "The one thing that is clear in all the polling and everything I've seen is, regardless of anything else, pretty consistently, fewer than ten percent of the Afghan people want to see a return of the Taliban. So the key is: How do we move forward in a way that takes advantage of that hostility to the Taliban and perhaps, in no small measure due to memories of what it was like when the Taliban ran the country, and do so with the Afghan people having confidence in the legitimacy of their government and not just the government in Kabul, but at the district and provincial levels as well. And as I said earlier, I think that that is a process, it's not something that's going to happen overnight or in a very short period of time. And we just have to work together with the Afghans to move in that direction. But the fact that 90 percent of the Afghan people do not want the Taliban to return means that I think we have some tremendous opportunities there. And I think the key is reversing the momentum on the Taliban and preventing them from controlling populated areas, areas of economic production, lines of communication and so on."
However, Gates noted "...there are also some realities that affect the timetable here, for example, I'm going to be out of Washington all this week and so is Admiral Mullen in Asia. I think Secretary Clinton is going to be gone several days next week. So it's just a matter now of getting the time with the president when we can sort through these options and then tee them up for him to make a decision." Gibbs said that he expects a decision on a revised strategy and troops well before the results of the runoff election are certified.
But the president swiftly clarified - declaring that any decision might be kept secret:
"It is entirely possible that we have a strategy formulated before a runoff is determined," Obama told MSNBC. But he added, somewhat cryptically, "We may not announce it."
It's probable that numbers and strategy have already been attached to various possible outcomes.
Meanwhile, American approval of Obama's handling of Afghanistan has begun to plummet:
In previous polls, Obama received some of his highest ratings in relation to his dealings with Afghanistan, including 63 percent approval in April of his handling of the situation there. In the latest poll, 45 percent approve, down 10 percentage points in the past month alone, and 47 percent disapprove, an increase of 10 points. Nearly a third of those surveyed say they strongly disapprove.
*Footnote: The NY Times reports 201,520 Abdullah votes (of 1,571,581 originally counted) were declared fraudulent. If their numbers are accurate, the final tally would be
Karzai 2,096,991
Abdullah 1,370,061
Okay, not really hard work - but since the Mrs took one of the doggies to the vet, today was Greyhawk's day to do the Dawn Patrol. That's a lot of work - so I've decided to double her pay.
But without the DP I'd probably never know that Indian authorities forced a U.S. plane carrying Marines to land in Mumbai today after confusion about its call sign - and all the other news involving milbloggers in Iraq or Afghanistan (or trying to get home).
Or that Joe "Beaners" Biden is in Poland soothing Europe on Russia and missile defense issues even as "an official" is soothing Russia on missile defense issues...
That everything in Iraq is going to hell, State wants less involvement there and Defense wants more - but just canceled orders for a Brigade deployment this winter...
And President Obama has decided to officially blame Bush for everything, and wants you to send money.
Also missing from the vague accusations leveled at the general is some sort of motive for his behavior. No one has accused him of racism yet...Here's why I said "yet":
The army is also "in a war against the White House -- and they feel they have [President] Obama boxed in," Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh told several hundred people in Duke University's Page Auditorium on Tuesday night. "They think he's weak and the wrong color. Yes, there's racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it's true and we all know it."
Hersh is so far off the mark here it would be astounding - if this were anyone other than Seymour Hersh.
Given that much of the "rift" he's squawking about is a well-choreographed show for one man's consumption (not that "the Pentagon" enjoys its part in the play - they understand the additional consequences, but ultimately they do follow orders) the remainder of his ravings - racist and otherwise - appear all the more clueless. But again, that's typical Seymour Hersh.
But is there anyone out there ignorant and gullible enough to unquestioningly swallow whatever junk Seymour spews? Yes.
So many of the saner people were driven out of the military during the Bush administration, it doesn't surprise me that the people left include a lot of the right-wing, racist fringe elements.
Update - in case you think Hersh hates anyone more than he does American soldiers, here's a blast from the past:
If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.
"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation," he said. "It isn't happening now, but I will tell you - there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."
Hersh also has accused American soldiers of committing atrocities in the 1991 Gulf War. He's one of those guys who imagines those big bullies that used to flush his head in the high school toilet every day all grew up and joined the army.
More:
It should also be noted that typical follow-up statements from Hersh on stories like this include: "I actually didn't quite say what I wanted to say correctly. It wasn't that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs."
And "Vice president Cheney does not have a death squad. This is another example of blogs going bonkers with misleading and fabricated stories and professional journalists repeating such rumours without doing their job - and that is to verify such rumours."
And "oh God of God please stop hitting me and tell Senator Kennedy I swear I won't do it again."
CNN: Karzai accepts Afghanistan election runoff. "Afghan President Hamid Karzai bowed to Western pressure Tuesday, agreeing to take part in a presidential runoff vote in two weeks." Not exactly the solution the Obama administration was hoping for; however, "Abdullah told CNN on Monday he was prepared to participate in a runoff, but said "the door is open" to other alternatives." Karzai is widely expected to win any runoff election.
"The international community and the Obama administration appear to favor the unity government rather than an election," said Khalilzad. "But you could get a government which is weak and divided and it would not have strong legitimacy," cautioned Khalilzad, who met both Karzai and Abdullah during his trip.
For now, at least, that position appears to have won the day. From the White House, President Obama announced "I welcome President Karzai's statement today accepting the Independent Electoral Commission's certification of the August 20 election results, and agreeing to participate in a second round of the election."
Karzai's decision was immediately hailed by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, one of several Western representatives who appeared alongside the Afghan president at Tuesday's delayed news conference.
<...>
Obama is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, and Kerry has said the results of the country's election should be settled before the United States makes any decision on troop levels.
It's admirable that President Obama, a product of the Chicago political machine, can't tolerate dealing with foreign governments tainted by corruption - as Karzai's government most assuredly is. Perhaps in Afghanistan he intends to establish the first government in world history to be free of accusations of criminal activity, greed or abuses of power. Or perhaps reality is close to that described last week, here:
But it's the real story on what's been going on in Washington. Karzai, you see, aint' showin' the proper respects. Maybe he's even skimming off the top, and you let someone get away with stuff like that right under your nose, you look weak. And sometimes in cases like that you obviously got to lean on a guy. If he thinks you need him more than he needs you, then you got to send him a message, remind him who's boss. It's strictly business, see?
Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere else entirely. Whatever the case, the first strong indication that the Obama administration was going to enlist the aid of the U.S. military as pawns in a game of leverage over Karzai came not with the "leak" of General McChrystal's report, but with a slight change in timing of the due-date of the report a month prior:
The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.
And the displeasure of "military officials" for their part in the plan could be clear from the leak of that story before the elections - or Secretary Gates' pushback hidden within other comments made regarding those elections shortly after the general's report was "leaked".
STEPHANOPOULOS: So now we have a real dilemma. Does that mean that the United States is re-thinking whether it can even -- whether it can bolster President Karzai's government or whether we have to give up on it?
GATES: Well, I -- you know, the Afghan people have gone to the polls and we have the two election commissions, one internal and one international, that could still come to conclusions, even if they throw out some fraudulent ballots or a number of fraudulent ballots, that there was a clear winner.
The key is whether the Afghans believe that their government has legitimacy. And everything that I've seen in the intelligence and elsewhere indicates that remains the case.
In fact, the corruption question regarding the Karzai government was of greater concern to the Obama administration than it was to the people of Afghanistan, who routinely expressed other concerns as far more significant problems for their country:
In your view, what is the biggest problem facing Afghanistan as a whole? And after that, what is the next biggest problem?
...and preferred local solutions to those imposed by foreign powers:
How much progress do you think ____ is making in providing a better life for Afghans in the future?
How would you rate the work of:
But the "leak" of the McChrystal report, and subsequent "leaks" of alternatives to a counterinsurgency mission as part of the military package in Afghanistan (complete withdrawal - or even a substantial reduction of U.S. forces - was never seriously an option on the table) set the stage for pressuring Karzai to deal. Give us what you need and we'll use our troops to keep the country from descending into chaos; otherwise, we'll just stick around to occasionally kill terrorists and see what happens.
And while they initially gave hope to those who would prefer to exit Afghanistan and angered those who would prefer to "complete the mission" there, each and every leak and news report - from Woodward's scoop on the McChrystal report to "officials" describing the "Biden alternative plan" can be viewed now for what they always were - messages to Karzai: we don't need you.
But more recently, real leaks have also occurred, providing glimpses behind the scenes. Klein: "Several of the principals involved in Obama's strategy review have told me that their ultimate position on troop levels will depend on whether a plausible government, newly committed to reform, emerges when the Afghanistan election process is finally completed." And a few days later, George Stephanopoulos reported "key questions tied to any troop recommendation" passed to him by administration officials - and all but one were tied to Karzai's responses to American demands:
- How to ensure effective civilian follow-on to any military surge?
- Can Afghan government be fixed?
- Is run-off necessary, or can Karzai achieve credibility by broadening his coalition?
- The Afghan government is far from perfect - can it be made "good enough?
- Are there ways to "work around" the Karzai government?
First, the infamous audio clip:
(Click here if your browser doesn't show the mp3 player above.)
And here's the full interview - Hugh Hewitt with Chuck Z, Mrs G and me:
The folks mentioned in this segment included Old Blue at Afghan Quest and Quatto at Quatto Zone (in Afghanistan), Starbuck at Wings over Iraq (just back from Iraq) and Tammy at Army Household6 (on the homefront with husband in Afghanistan). Those good folks are the tip of the iceberg; as always, Mrs G's Dawn Patrol is the best place to keep up with the latest from all milbloggers at home and abroad.
The kick off is coming soon - for information on how you can join us in this year's Valour-IT fundraiser click here.
Thanks again to Kanani and Jihad Gene for photos.
Politico: "CNBC, Reuters fall for climate hoax"
In a story posted Monday morning, Reuters declared: "The Chamber of Commerce said on Monday it will no longer opposes climate change legislation, but wants the bill to include a carbon tax."
Reuters updated the story to acknowledge the hoax, but it was too late: The Washington Post and the New York Times had already posted the fake story on their Web sites.
Add that to last week's headlines ("US to send 13000 additional troops to Afghanistan" and "Obama quietly deploying 13000 more US troops to Afghanistan") and we're left once again with the years-old question of why anyone still considers "news" from newspapers or television as reliable. I have no answer.
They do some impressive fact checking, however:
In a related story from CNN last week
Richard Strandlof said he survived the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. He said he survived again when a roadside bomb went off in Iraq, killing four fellow Marines. He'd point to his head and tell people he had a metal plate, collateral damage from the explosion.
None of it was true. On Friday, the FBI arrested him on the rare charge of "stolen valor."
<...>
Before his deception was revealed, crowds ate up his story. He canvassed Colorado appearing at the sides of politicians. Inspiring and seemingly authentic, he spoke on behalf of veterans at the state Capitol.
What they left out was that milbloggers had been suspicious of Strandlof (he was actually using the name "Rick Duncan" as part of his fraud) immediately upon hearing him, and with a little work we were able to discover an awful lot of information on this con man.
Or maybe not - maybe years of practice at exposing these guys just makes me think it's easy. Besides that, while "Rick Duncan" was busy speaking at Obama rallies, cohosting "several events with then- congressional candidate Jared Polis" and appearing in VoteVets ads supporting their Party's candidates American newspaper and television reporters were already working overtime exposing "Joe the Plumber" as a mere apprentice with a lien on his house whose name was misspelled on his voter registration card.Likewise they don't point out that the media are often victims of these frauds, and their amplification without fact checking ends up costing everyone:
But back to the Politico story for a close:"Many of those people are now wondering what motivated Mr. Strandlof", the New York Times now adds regarding the various shocked "veterans advocates", Congressional aides and elected officials that embraced Richard G. Strandlof as Rick Duncan, USMC (we'll assume the newspaper and television reporters weren't a bit surprised). But I can help with that, too: he was a con man, who had found the easiest marks in the world.
This isn't unimportant - besides getting suckers to open their pocketbooks for direct donations, when members of these "veterans groups" start singing their tunes the media gleefully amplifies them, and members of congress tend to get up and dance - pledging to launch investigations into whatever outrage their fevered imaginations can conceive. Whether fraudulent veterans or real veterans with fraudulent stories, we're all contributing cash in the form of tax dollars as a result - as real issues are ignored.
"Reuters has an obligation to its clients to publish news and information that could move financial markets, and this story had the potential to do that," said a Thomson Reuters spokesperson. "Once we had confirmed the release was a hoax, we immediately issued a correction, and in keeping with Reuters policy, the story was subsequently withdrawn and an advisory sent to readers.""We're sorry" sounds exactly right.
A few more cards on the table - as evident from this Times (London) account (headline: "White House seeks to explain its hesitations on Afghanistan") the Obama administration has come as close as it likely ever will to acknowledging the story behind the story of the Afghan troop numbers.
President Obama was said yesterday to be more concerned at "whether there's an Afghan partner" worth defending than with the politically fraught question of how many more troops to send, according to Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama's chief of staff and a central figure in White House deliberations on Afghanistan.The New York Times:
The White House signaled Sunday that President Obama would postpone any decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until the disputed election there had been settled and resulted in a government that could work with the United States.A noble cause, indeed. From the time of the release of the Af/Pak policy in March the administration's displeasure with the Karzai government was obvious:
That the administration had issues with the Afghan government was clear from before the policy became official, and last weekend's statements were well-timed, as this report from Bloomberg reveals:Immediate concern: depending on interpretation, this: "Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan", could cause some difficulties in the near term. Depending on execution it could cause long term problems, too.
That problematic interpretation isn't beyond the realm of possibility...
Afghanistan's UN-backed electoral panel invalidated an unspecified number of ballots in the Aug. 20 presidential election, a ruling that a U.S. monitoring group said may force incumbent Hamid Karzai into a runoff vote.
The Electoral Complaints Commission ordered the agency counting the vote, the Independent Election Commission, to adjust its official tally, the ECC said today on its Web site without giving details of the stricken ballots. Washington-based Democracy International said its analysis of ECC procedures shows that Karzai will get 48 percent of the revised vote, short of the 50 percent threshold he needs to avoid a runoff.
The BBC was confident enough in that prediction to headline their story Karzai 'stripped of outright win'. And "according to today's local paper," a milblogger in Afghanistan writes, "the number of votes cast for President Karzai has slipped to 47%."
Meanwhile, the full-court press is on. The AP:
NATO's 28 member states must quickly endorse U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to send reinforcements to deal with the escalating insurgency in Afghanistan because time is not on the alliance's side, its chief said Monday.
But Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he doesn't expect NATO defense ministers to discuss such steps at their meeting this week in Bratislava, Slovakia. He said it "makes sense" to delay such decisions until the final results of Afghanistan's disputed presidential elections are known.
And VoA reports "Senior foreign officials have urged Mr. Karzai to accept the findings of a fraud investigation by a U.N.-backed panel that could decide whether the nation's disputed election goes to a runoff." Among those officials, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and U.S. Senator John Kerry. But more notable (if less noticed) was the participation of Bush administration U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (and later Iraq) Zalmay Khalilzad.
Former U.S. ambassador to both Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, returned from Kabul on Monday and said Karzai was willing to "power-share" and that differences with Abdullah appeared to be in the timing of such an agreement.
"The international community and the Obama administration appear to favor the unity government rather than an election," said Khalilzad. "But you could get a government which is weak and divided and it would not have strong legitimacy," cautioned Khalilzad, who met both Karzai and Abdullah during his trip.
Khalilzad recently criticized the Obama administration's dealings with Karzai,
...I believe that there was a mistake in terms of dealing with Karzai. Clear indications were given as least as Karzai saw it that the administration, some key members of the administration, did not like him and wanted to get rid of him and was encouraging others to run against him. And the meetings with him were quite contentious."
"At the same time the administration did not have a realistic plan about how to get another leader elected by the Afghan people. And so that in turn has been a factor in getting Karzai to hedge against the U.S. being administratively against him by assuring his prospects by making deals with others."
His return to the country of his birth (Khalilzad, like Karzai, is ethnic Pashtun) as a representative of the current administration* may signify a concession of failure thus far on their part to get Karzai to play ball, and/or an additional level of pressure brought to bear. (Khalilzad has also been mentioned as a possible member of the Afghan government - in May the New York Times reported he had considered running against Karzai for the presidency.)
As for a power sharing deal, according to Joe Klein that's exactly what the Obama administration wants from Karzai: "It seems clear--to me, at least--that the preferred U.S. outcome is no runoff election (which would be yet another security headache for U.S. troops in any case) and a coalition government in which Abdullah negotiates and achieves a significant portfolio." In fact, Klein sees Rahm Emanuel's statement last weekend as a message "...directed at Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign minister who ran second in the election: make a deal with Karzai now."
From part two:
...the first strong indication that the Obama administration was going to enlist the aid of the U.S. military as pawns in a game of leverage over Karzai came not with the "leak" of General McChrystal's report, but with a slight change in timing of the due-date of the report a month prior:
The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.
*Late update: according to this BBC report Zalmay Khalilzad "much to the annoyance of US officials, said he had come on a personal basis to help resolve this crisis."
We've been at Blogworld Expo, and very much busy - more details to follow.
Meanwhile, Chuck Z has some coverage. A great conference, thanks much to Rick Calvert, (who outdoes himself every year), and Laughing Wolf, who put together a strong military track.
And thanks also to the US Army, who sponsored the Milbloggers Lounge at the Expo this year, and to Hugh Hewitt for having several milbloggers on his radio program live from the convention floor. (A great chance to plug Valour-IT, even if Hugh is committed to joining the wrong team...)
Much more to say, but it will have to wait for later.
ATTENTION: bloggers wanted - see below
Another reminder that the Valour-IT Fundraiser is coming soon. IN LESS THAN 3 WEEKS! Starts Oct 26 - Day of the Deployed through Veteran's Day.
You'll notice in the right side bar the countdown widget.
Soldiers' Angels has helped so many of our military forces. Now you can help them help our wounded.
Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery. You can learn more about it here.
Mudville will be leading the Air Force team again for the 5th annual Valour- IT fundraiser Competition. We need to step up the game to make this year bigger and better than ever.
For those unfamiliar with "Valour-IT Blogging Fundraiser Competition" , I've posted about it here.
Some previous post:
Valour - IT, The Reality
Not just the "Air Farce" (Continued)
If you don't have a blog there are other ways you can participate, just email me and I'll give you the details.
AIR FORCE TEAM MEMBERS TO DATE:
Ed Morrissey - Hot Air
John Noonan - OPFOR
Madhu - OnParkStreet
vw bug - One Happy Dog Speaks
Chris Short - Chris Short
Laurie - Soldiers Angels New York
Buck Pennington - Exile in Portales
Elen Grey - Could Be A Blog
Maja - Not Your Average Brooklynette
Paul - mean ol' meany
Mike - No Angst Zone
WE LOVE TO HAVE MORE TEAM MEMBERS . Spread the word! So if you're interested in joining our team please contact me [mrsg-at-mudvillegazette.com] or leave a comment below.
While teams are divided along military lines, you need not have been in the military in order to help or join a team. This is a great way to unite communities in the blogosphere. So pick the best Air Force team. We'll welcome you as a member.
The technology your efforts help provide will have a positive effect in the recovery of our wounded warriors, reconnecting them with the world and helping them regain their confidence and independence. This wouldn't be possible without you.
So let's get some birds in the air! Join Team Air Force!
Uno Ab Alto ! (One over all)
2009-09-22 16:56:01
Whoever wrote the caption for CNN on the video below got it wrong, this is actually Fareed Zakaria interviewing Husain Haqqani - Pakistan's ambassador to the United States - but it's well worth viewing.
This Washington Post story has caught the attention of political bloggers - I can never tell what newspaper stories will. The only "new" part of this one is someone has decided to figure out how many "support troops" or "enablers" have been sent to Afghanistan this year. Since it does note briefly that this "new" number "does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000" I'm a bit confused by the excitement level. If there's a story here it's that once again, most major media journalists really aren't very good at tracking and reporting what goes on in the nation's wars.
Back in September the New York Times was desperately trying to come up with an excuse for the Afghanistan build up, and tried to explain (on the president's behalf) that he had been young, inexperienced and impulsive when he had added additional troops to Afghanistan
His decision to send 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan early this year, which will bring the number of American troops there to 68,000 this fall, was made hurriedly within weeks of coming into office...
Afghanistan, the Times would have us believe, was something the new president hadn't really given much thought to during his years campaigning for the office of Commander in Chief. That would be "news" of an altogether different sort (fiction, we call it where I come from) - but regardless, the 68,000 number is real and isn't news.
And headlines like US to send 13000 additional troops to Afghanistan and Obama quietly deploying 13000 more US troops to Afghanistan now appearing all over the world are wrong.
Apparently less newsworthy is the source for some of those "support troops" and "enablers." Even as tens of thousands of troops are deploying to Iraq (including many as quiet replacements for the combat brigades that were loudly trumpeted last February as being "switched" from Iraq to Afghanistan tours) and troop levels there remain at well over 120,000, consolidation of forces has reduced the need for some support troops there.
While downplaying the why are so many more troops going to Iraq instead of Afghanistan question, Stars and Stripes explains that while once they're actually deployed it's difficult to move combat brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan, smaller units of support troops can be (and are) relocated with fewer complications:
Some 86 soldiers from the 100th Brigade Support Battalion had been headquartered in Balad for three months when the battalion got the word in March that it was soon to be transferred to southern Afghanistan.
Next up were 500 combat engineers from the 4th Engineer Battalion, who arrived in Baghdad in mid-February and were boarding C-17s for the four-hour flight to Kandahar less than a month later. Even that shift took more than a month, despite having some equipment already in place in Kandahar, said Capt. Jonathan Davis, rear detachment commander.
(See also here.)
But as far as news coverage goes, we're talking about people that years after the fact still haven't figured out that no additional combat brigades were sent to Iraq for "the surge" - the whole thing was accomplished by simply extending tour lengths by three months. (And when the actual length of the extension was announced, they thought that was a "new" story, too.) We're not likely to get any "better news" from them today.
A Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, says the Post story itself notes that the 13,000 support troops are within the overall maximum authorized by President Barack Obama earlier this year.
"The story confirms that 68,000 is still the number. So nothing is missing. Nothing is hidden. The 13,000 doesn't somehow increase from 68 [thousand] to above that. So we've consistently said by the end of the year, on the current glide path, 68,000. And as the story acknowledges, that's where we'll be," said Lapan.
Once upon a time, most bloggers knew that not every thing you read in a newspaper is true. Those days are gone.
The pictures that fill the album below were taken 25 years ago today.
And a few months later I set out to do a hitch in the service. We were going to try that lifestyle out for a few years, see if it was right for us, maybe see a little bit of the world. After that start a family, maybe in the military, maybe not.
Nine months after the day I shipped out our oldest was born, reminding us that life is what happens while you make plans. We have seen much of the world, though (I got to see Iraq for two of our last four anniversaries - including the 20th), and I wouldn't change a thing.
And I still love that girl in the picture on the cover.
Talking point: al-Qaeda is in Pakistan. And we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.
That's from Fareed Zakaria's Washington Post piece, but I've heard it parroted on the TeeVee News several times today - along with the statement - delivered straight-faced - that Pakistan is now the Central Front.
Don't know that I would have tried for this particular camera angle...
This is not a commercial for Barack Obama. It is a damn fine video report on the war in Afghanistan and the troops who fight it. Video below, but I'd advise you to read your way to it. My email today from the good folks at Frontline includes something of a caution:
Due to the breaking nature of the policy debate on Afghanistan, FRONTLINE has decided to publish an assembly of Act 1 on its Web site before we've finished editing for the broadcast. At a time when policy arguments in Washington fill the airwaves, "Obama's War" provides a vivid first-hand look at the President's new counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Act 1 follows the Marines of Echo Company, 8th Marines, 2nd Battalion, as they carry out their mission in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province. We witness in harrowing detail as the Marines come under fire for several days this past summer--a sequence that ends, terribly, with the mortal wounding of the young Marine who was the first to die during Operation Khanjar. It is extremely sensitive material, but critical to understanding the grim realities on the ground. FRONTLINE has already notified the Marine's family, who hoped that the film would help honor the sacrifices of all those on the ground who are engaged in a very difficult fight.
The camera maintains a respectful distance, and the Marine's face is never identifiable. He is acknowledged by name in the narration.
Act 1 continues with an up-close look at the day-to-day hurdles the Marines encounter: we see the old schoolhouse covered in Taliban graffiti where the Marines now set up camp; visit the nearby abandoned markets where the villagers are afraid to do business for fear of Taliban retaliation; and watch as the rank-and-file struggle with inadequate interpreters and attempt to gain the trust of the Afghan people.
We believe this is one of the strongest pieces of war reportage FRONTLINE has ever produced.
Acts 2 & 3, which we'll air and publish on Oct 13, will offer powerful and timely analysis of administration's evolving counterinsurgency strategy--including interviews with the key players: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top commander in Afghanistan; Adm. Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And much more here. The folks at Frontline have always done an incredible job documenting America's wars. They never fail to grab my attention and challenge my perceptions, I've never been less than completely impressed.
2009-10-01 18:25:08
If you can make it to the end of Newsweek's Joe Biden profile (this week's cover story) you'll find this:
Biden, it should be noted, has not always showed the most clear-eyed judgment. In 1990 he voted against American involvement in the first Gulf war, which turned out to be a relatively low-cost success, whereas he voted for the invasion of Iraq, which turned into a near fiasco. He opposed the 2007 Iraq surge, which rescued the American effort from near defeat.
Which means you can bet against him with a high degree of certainty. But if the flood of "inside information" gushing from anonymous White House "administration officials" (from the time of McChrystal's assessment to last weekend) is to be believed his ideas on how to approach combat in Afghanistan are now viewed as serious alternatives to those of the president's more experienced military advisers.
Not that Newsweek doesn't provide insight into Biden's own war time experience: "...he has always been a member of the Vietnam generation, and, unlike some younger members of the administration, including the president, he has a firsthand memory of American defeat."
Although that's an odd way to describe a guy who received five student deferments before graduating...
...and then
A month after undergoing a physical exam in April 1968, Mr. Biden received a Selective Service classification of 1-Y, meaning he was available for service only in the event of national emergency.
Asthma as a teenager, it seems. Those were rough days; I'm the same age as President Obama (okay, a few months younger) but unlike him (at least, unlike the president Newsweek describes in this Biden story) I actually do remember the final years of America's alliance with South Vietnam. (In fairness, a few years after being declared "1-Y" Biden successfully campaigned to become the nation's youngest senator after calling for withdrawal, and later voted to cut off funding for South Vietnam - so he can claim involvement in the war.)
Bob Woodward remembers Vietnam, too: "The Pentagon Papers, in 1971, came out eight years too late. . . . I've been in the trenches before, going back to Nixon" he said, explaining his decision to publish McChrystal's assessment.
[Woodward] said he was given the McChrystal report for use in a book about the administration that he plans to publish next year, but he realized that its blunt assessment of Afghanistan, as President Obama is deciding whether to send more troops, "would have been overtaken by events."
"I went back to the source or sources and said, 'This definitely belongs in the newspaper,' and they agreed," Woodward said. Likening the report to the classified study of the Vietnam War that was leaked to the New York Times, The Post and other newspapers, Woodward said: "The Pentagon Papers, in 1971, came out eight years too late... I've been in the trenches before, going back to Nixon"...
But enough ancient history. (The Obama White House isn't open to Bob Woodward anyway - he makes them "nervous", at least, those old enough to know who he is.) If Biden today can be labeled as worse than a coin toss on military issues, at least he's now taken more seriously than most of the kids on Obama's staff - who Newsweek describes as snickering at him, to the point the veep finally had to complain to his boss.
Biden felt insulted. Through staffers, Obama apologized, protesting that he had meant no disrespect. But at one of their regularly scheduled weekly lunches, Biden directly raised the incident with the president. The veep said he was trying to be more disciplined about his own remarks, but he asked that in return the president refrain from making fun (and require his staff to do likewise).
But he who snickers last, as they say. And thanks to one of last week's many leaks from "administration officials", we know those youngsters aren't feeling like such hot shot smart alecs now.
"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.
You couldn't have gotten a better quote from Biden himself. But in all the dust up that's resulted since the leak of McChrystal's report (and the daily flood of leaks since - reporters could go whitewater rafting on the White House lawn these days) Joe Biden is one guy who hasn't been quoted on the topic - not even in the Newsweek piece.
The well-connected American number two man (Biden "knows all the players," says Emanuel) is certainly living up to his promise to the president to be more disciplined about his own remarks - proving at long last that 1-Y or not, he's a good soldier after all; and first and foremost a company man.
In the mail: Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and Its Aftermath
In 1940 Ben Steele, a twenty-two-year old Montana cowboy, wanted to see the world and serve his country, so he enlisted in the Army Air Corps and eventually found himself stationed in the Philippines.
Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In the first four months of 1942, American and Filipino soldiers fought the Japanese - America's first major land battle of World War II, the battle for the tiny Philippine peninsula of Bataan. It ended with the surrender of 76,000 Filipino and American troops, among them Ben Steele. This was the single largest defeat in American military history. The defeat, though, was only the beginning. Tears in the Darkness is the extraordinary story of the horrific death march that followed, told from the shifting viewpoints of three cultures - American, Japanese, and Filipino.
In addition to photographs, the book features drawings from the sketchbooks of Ben Steele, that were made during his six decades as an artist and teacher of art in Billings, Montana.
Michael Norman has been a professional writer and journalist (including a correspondent for the New York Times) for thirty-five years. His first book, "These Good Men: Friendships Forged From War," a memoir published to critical acclaim in 1990 by Crown, turned on his time as a combat Marine in Vietnam.
Beth Norman is the daughter of two World War II veterans. Her father served with the U.S. Army in Europe in 1944; her mother was in uniform with the U.S. Coast Guard. Beth began her professional career as a registered nurse before turning to the study of history and writing.
You can read an excerpt from the book here.
"You really saw the true spirit of the American soldier on Saturday."
"I think the best moment, that told me what a great unit I was in, what great guys I was working with, was when everyone basically came together and in the midst of it all they were donating blood to the wounded that we had. They all pulled together to make sure we could pull our buddies out of this."
Soldiers involved in the fight describe the attack and its aftermath in interviews conducted shortly after the October, 2009 battle.
Embed code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/g9dFgaa_OwA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Participants in this interview are:
Sgt. Jayson Souter
Chief Warrant Officer Ross Lewallen, Apache Pilot
Chief Warrant Officer Chad Bardwell, Apache Gunner
1st Lt. Cason Shrode, Fires Support Officer
We've compiled the original 5-part DoD release into three segments.
Bumped - it's not too late to make plans to join us in Vegas - but time is running out.
Rick Calvert, founder and head of Blog World and New Media Expo, has issued a challenge not just to me, but to you too. It seems Rick is convinced we can get 200 people to the milblog track on 15 October, quite a good number of people. So, he has challenged me to make it happen, and he has challenged you, our readers, to make it happen as well. Now, I'm not saying he said anything about us, SO's or anything like that, or that he will call us things if we don't, but I don't plan on giving him any opportunity. Especially as this is at his generosity, which is greatly appreciated. So, here's the deal:
1. If you are currently serving in the Armed Forces, or are a veteran of same (discharged or retired) and want to attend, drop me a line at blake at blakepowers dot n with BWE09 Free Registration in the subject line and a short note introducing yourself within, and you will get a code that gives you a free registration for the milblog track on 15 October, and access to the exhibit hall (and the Milblog Lounge) on the 16th & 17th.
2. If you are a military spouse, spouse blogger, military supporter, or reader of the milblogs, the same applies.
3. If you have a blog or other outlets of your own (Twitter, Facebook, newsgroups, e-mail groups, etc.), please spread the word.
4. If you happen to have contacts in blogging or old media in California, Nevada, or Arizona, please reach out to them as well, as we would very much like to be sure that we reach all the different bases in those regions.
I will also note that if you are interested in attending, there are some excellent deals on rooms and such through the Blog World site once you are registered.
While the registration only covers the milblog track and exhibit hall, if you want to attend parties, other sessions, etc., you can contact BWE after you register and see about the costs of upgrades. Also, a reminder to those already speaking and attending: if your spouse, SO, or other is coming with you and you want them to get in, be sure they register with one of the free codes so they can be badged.
Keep an eye on the grid at Blog World, as we are updating as needed and are still working on trying to make a surprise or two happen.
More here :
What is a Milblog, and Why Should You Care?
Greyhawk and I hope to see you there!
Soldiers involved in the fight describe the attack and its aftermath in interviews conducted shortly after the October, 2009 battle.
Embed code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/g9dFgaa%2BVQA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Participants in this interview are:
Sgt. Jayson Souter
Chief Warrant Officer Ross Lewallen, Apache Pilot
Chief Warrant Officer Chad Bardwell, Apache Gunner
1st Lt. Cason Shrode, Fires Support Officer
We've compiled the original 5-part DoD release into three segments.
Video interviews with soldiers involved in the fight describing the battle:
Participating in this interview are:
Sgt. Jayson Souter
Chief Warrant Officer Ross Lewallen, Apache Pilot
Chief Warrant Officer Chad Bardwell, Apache Gunner
1st Lt. Cason Shrode, Fires Support Officer
Embed code:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/g9dFgaarZQA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="270" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
We've compiled the original 5-part DoD release into three segments.
(Part four in a series that began here)
When you want to know at least one side of the story of the political battles in Washington, Joe Klein is as good a source as any:
In fact, most of the hoo-hah about Obama's Afghanistan strategy review has been a matter of smoke and mirrors....
<...>
Why, then, all the excitement and controversy? Politics, pure and simple. There is an effort afoot by neoconservatives, led by Senator John McCain, to paint the President as flaccid on national security. McCain has been going around for the past few weeks telling all comers -- heatedly, at times -- that Obama's strategy review is essentially a waste of time, that the President has to, has to, go with the 40,000-troop option in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration, unnecessarily defensive, added fuel to the fire by having National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates obliquely chastise McChrystal for public lobbying.
Setting aside the absurdity of John McCain as leader of neocons, the idea that Republicans would love nothing more than to depict President Obama as soft on national security is undeniably true. (McCain himself is probably best described as a proponent of sufficient troops for the mission - his advocacy now is no different than his position on Iraq: Mr. McCain's "early and consistent call," which began in the fall of 2003, was long dismissed by the White House, which insisted that the president was following the advice of his commanders. Mr. McCain returned from each of his trips to Iraq arguing that the commanders needed more troops, and lambasted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld as "irresponsible" for urging a quick turnover of the effort to Iraqis. If President Obama is upset at all by the Senator's current behavior, that's something else he and his predecessor can commiserate on at the next POTUS reunion.)
The political right, however, was ill-prepared to assault Obama using McChrystal as bludgeon. In fact, they had already begun a campaign to depict the general as the president's lackey, endangering the troops with politically correct ROE. This absurd narrative was just gaining slight traction when seemingly from out of the blue the "McChrystal vs Obama" theme became available. Attempts to reconcile the two perhaps hit their peak of absurdity with this depiction of General McChrystal as yet another Obamabot struggling not to be "thrown under the bus".
With so many on the right having knocked themselves out of the discussion early, it's hardly surprising that the political left was the side that took the bait offered with the leak of the general's Afghanistan assessment - and the 10,000 leaks from seemingly out of control anonymous "administration officials" that followed it - and jumped most eagerly into the perceived fray, defending their president (who had expressed neither opposition or discontent with his general, or even a desire for outside help in dealing with the matter) most vigorously from what they saw as a blatant attack by a career soldier who somehow never learned his place in the chain of command.
Now, however, they're discovering the error of their ways. And by golly, it's that mean ol' neocon McCain who was actually behind this whole thing!
Buried a little further down in Klein's piece (well below "two brigades, or 10,000 troops, will probably be sent to secure Kandahar city and environs, and two other brigades will be sent to train and advise the Afghan security forces.") is a little line you'd hardly notice...
Several of the principals involved in Obama's strategy review have told me that their ultimate position on troop levels will depend on whether a plausible government, newly committed to reform, emerges when the Afghanistan election process is finally completed.
Maybe you weren't even supposed to notice that. Just as no one was really supposed to notice this last August:
The timing of Gen. McChrystal's primary assessment remains in flux. It was initially due in mid-August, but the commander was summoned to a secret meeting in Belgium last week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told to take more time. Military officials say the assessment will now be released sometime after the Aug. 20 vote.
But it's the real story on what's been going on in Washington. Karzai, you see, aint' showin' the proper respects. Maybe he's even skimming off the top, and you let someone get away with stuff like that right under your nose, you look weak. And sometimes in cases like that you obviously got to lean on a guy. If he thinks you need him more than he needs you, then you got to send him a message, remind him who's boss. It's strictly business, see?
And maybe there are signs that business is working pretty good, or else you really would have seen a much bigger story surrounding the firing of the American representative to the UN Afghan mission over the issue of election fraud instead of odd comments like this:
With American officials increasingly accepting the idea that Mr. Karzai will be the next president despite a large number of well-documented irregularities in the election, Mr. Galbraith's stance put him at odds with both the Obama administration and the United Nations.
And nothing from the US Ambassador to the UN on the subject even as she did the weekend talk show circuit immediately afterward, and chatted about troop levels instead.
But who knows, maybe that story will turn out big after all. Maybe it was just briefly eclipsed by all the fixation on the story of a general who was over the line. (Something the general didn't appreciate one bit, I'm sure*.) Maybe Hamid ain't really got the message after all. But for now, at least now that we know the whole McChrystal vs Obama thing was actually just John McCain making trouble, we can get back to business.
Hellavagood game though - and every American got to play a part.
Previously: Smoke signals
* "...one tragedy of being an honest and decent person is that you will allow influential actors in your system of government to spread misperceptions of your presumed disloyalty precisely because you are loyal to the system."
The Times o'London with yesterday's "leak" from the American ship o'State:
President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.
Given the number of "leaks" from the administration over the past several weeks, you'd think someone could have done something to curtail them by now...
Iraq may not be the "central front" in the era of persistent conflict, but clearly it remains the number one destination for deploying troops.
The Third Infantry Division, the Ft Stewart, Georgia based U.S. Army division that toppled the Saddam Hussein regime with the "Thunder Run" in 2003, returned to Iraq in 2005 and again during "the surge" in 2007 is now beginning its historic fourth deployment to Iraq. "Division Commander Major General Tony Cucolo and Division Command Sergeant Major Jesse Andrews cased the battle-hardened 3rd ID Colors at Marne Garden amidst a multicolored array of brigade and battalion flags that represented more than 20,000 Dog Face Soldiers..."
"The general said that by the end of this year, 14,000 Marne Soldiers will have deployed and the remaining units will follow in 2010." More from Ft Stewart's newspaper The Frontline:
The 3rd Infantry Division made history, again, as a Colors Casing and Retreat Ceremony held Oct. 2 signified the Marne Division's fourth deployment to Iraq - a milestone made by no other U.S. Army division.
<...>
"You are in the presence of history," Maj. Gen. Cucolo said during the ceremony. "You will not see this sight again, for a long time."The commanding general said that the ceremony was the last day that all the colors throughout the division would be present together at Fort Stewart for at least the next two years.
"The unit colors represent people," he said. "Though you cannot see them, behind each one of those colors are several thousand Soldiers - all volunteers, determined, tough, proud of whom they are and proud of the fact that what they are doing in their lives right now, matters.
"And, next to them are their Families - spouses, sons and daughters, moms and dads, sisters and brothers, significant others, who provide them with love and support that sustains them more often than not in this formation for one more time."
The division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team and members of the Division Special Troops Battalion began their Iraq deployments last month. The 2nd HBCT will follow in the coming weeks and will join division headquarters as Task Force Marne in Northern Iraq.
The 1st HBCT will deploy to Baghdad, Iraq, in November. The unit is currently preparing for combat at the National Training Center located at Fort Irwin, Calif. Along with other units deploying or in theater this will enable U.S. force levels in Iraq to be maintained at approximately 120,000 troops well into next year.
Division commander Major General Cucolo is an Afghanistan veteran:
Unlike the rest of the division, the Combat Aviation Brigade, based out of Hunter Army Airfield will deploy to Afghanistan this month to replace an aviation unit already there. Barring any rapid increase in forces, U.S. troop levels in that theater will remain at 68,000.
The 3ID's 4th Brigade Combat Team had been training for an anticipated Afghanistan deployment...
New fight: Unit preps for Afghanistan sans tanks
DAHLONEGA, Ga. -- Drenched in sweat, Army Capt. Aaron Hall peeled off his soggy socks and applied a liberal dose of foot powder before slipping on a dry pair and rallying his troops back to their throbbing feet. For an outfit used to being ferried from fight to fight in armored vehicles, a 50-mile march through the Appalachians was a little much.
Perhaps no unit better exemplifies the challenges presented by the Army's transition from desert warfare in Iraq to rugged mountain campaigns in Afghanistan than the 3rd Infantry Division's 4th Brigade, whose tanks and Bradley assault vehicles were among the first to rumble into Baghdad in the 2003 invasion.
<...>
"I've been four times," 44-year-old Sgt. Maj. Mark Barnes said of Iraq as he rested by a waterfall shaded by tall pines, "and I'd kind of like to see Afghanistan -- it's a change of venue."
...but this week the DoD announced they (along with the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the 1st Cavalry Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team) would deploy to Iraq next summer instead.
Prior to furling and casing the 3rd ID Colors, Maj. Gen. Cucolo and Command Sgt. Maj. Andrews secured each of the Division's 27 campaign streamers that represent Soldiers' sacrifice from the fields of France to the sands of Iraq.
"The first decade of the 21st century has been for your Army, violent, chaotic, costly, (and) transformational," said Maj. Gen. Cucolo. "It's also been strengthening, hardening, (and) toughening. I don't know what the second decade of the 21st century will bring. What I do know is that this decade ends with us moving out one more time, and we're ready."
Previously: The war the times forgot
"We had fixed wing [jets] 20 minutes after fight started," Shrode told ABC News. "We had helicopters 20 minutes later. ... We had so many different assets up in the air ... they were stacked on so many different levels."
Nevertheless, the battle raged throughout the morning. There was a lull about noon, before the attack resumed.
"We had everything we needed. It was just a big attack with a lot of people. Bad things happen, but I think we did well, considering the circumstances."
<...>
One concern was a report that several large caliber weapons were trained on the helicopter landing zone, waiting for a Medevac flight to take out the wounded.
First reports of the battle in Nuristan here.
"I miss being commander and chief of our military the most. You know you live in an amazing country when we have servicemen that continually volunteer to serve their country in the face of danger. I believe we have an obligation to give our troops all the support they need to accomplish their missions."
(HT Instapundit: "BUSH SPEAKS, refrains from criticizing Obama.")
(But note to reporters/editors: it's Commander in Chief)
Next day update: The current Commander in Chief has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The New York Times calls it a "stunning surprise". The Times (of London): "absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize."
The official announcement says "...awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
In other defense news - more troops for Iraq:
Pentagon Announces Iraq Troop Rotations, Extensions
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2009 - An Army armored cavalry unit and three brigade combat teams will deploy to Iraq next summer as part of annual troop rotations there, according to a Defense Department news release issued today.
Also, an Army headquarters unit and elements of a Marine expeditionary force now in Iraq have been issued deployment extensions, the release said.
The Army announced an increase in activated reservists, the DoD released the names of the eight soldiers killed in last weekend's battle in Nuristan, and a "senior administration official" told the London Times that "President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander."
Glenn Reynolds interviews John Ondrasik of Five For Fighting "about music, multiculturalism, support for the troops, and the politics of art. Plus, his new album, Slice. A very cool guy, and I wish more musicians were like him."
Me, too. Video here.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran's effort not to lambaste "some" civilians involved in planning America's Af/Pak adventure earlier this year is commendable - but the story is still there.
"With the costs now clearer, some officials at the National Security Council and the State Department who voiced support for counterinsurgency in March have started to consider other options."
Anger, committing suicide, confused, deeply disillusioned, demoralizing, depressed, depression, despair, disgust, divorces, extraordinarily tough, frustrated, futile, futility, it's all pain, joke, just surviving, losing heart, lost, lost their desire, morale falling fast, nightmares, PTSD, scared, sitting ducks, sleeplessness, slumped, strained, struggled to cope, tired, whole country is going to shit...
An alphabetized list of adjectives appearing in this Times Online account of two chaplains' view of the war in Afghanistan, now linked at locations varying from the top of the Drudge Report to Islam Online; from Democratic Underground to Lucianne.com.
Hardly shocking, that those who serve as spiritual guides and counselors would see their war on those terms. Ask a medic from a combat support hospital about her war and you'll hear tales of the terrible cost of battle on the human body; ask a mortuary affairs specialist and they'll tell you everyone going home is dead.
Such is war. That's why mental health experts, chaplains, medics, and mortuary affairs are part of the package. All are part of a larger group I once described as young men with an ugly job, America's finest sent to do our worst and best*. You owe them nothing more than everything, what you offer them is up to you.
You needn't even pay attention.
"It would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq," Osama bin Laden cautioned Americans during the surge, "who are paying -- with their blood, nerves and scattered limbs..."
Among them is the eloquent message of Joshua which he sent by way of the media, in which he wipes the tears from his eyes and describes American politicians in harsh terms and invites them to join him there for a few days. Perhaps the message will find in you an attentive ear so you can rescue him and more than 150,000 of your sons there who are tasting the two bitterest things:
If they leave their barracks, the mines devour them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus the only options left in front of them are to commit suicide or cry, both of which are from the severest of afflictions. So is there anything more men can do after crying and killing themselves to make you respond to them? They are doing that out of the severity of humiliation, fear, and terror which they are suffering.
The president had General McChrystal's resource request when the two met last week:
The Department of Defense announced today the death of eight soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their contingency outpost with small arms, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fires. They were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
Killed were:
Staff Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, 25 of Savannah, Ga.
Sgt. Justin T. Gallegos, 27, of Tucson, Ariz.
Sgt. Joshua M. Hardt, 24, of Applegate, Calif.
Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk, 30, of South Portland, Maine.
Sgt. Michael P. Scusa, 22, of Villas, N.J.
Spc. Christopher T. Griffin, 24, of Kincheloe, Mich.
Spc. Stephan L. Mace, 21, of Lovettsville, Va.
Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson, 22, of Reno, Nev.
More on Sergeant Gallegos and Sergeant Hardt here. Identities of the other six soldiers were released yesterday.
And here's the audio of my radio airtime with the Princess of Positive, Greta Perry.
She sez I'm a military expert, but I don't think I'm anywhere near the caliber of folks I see on television these days with that designation attached to their names.
But that was a fun 15 minutes - thanks Greta!
"Imagine that."
Some years ago I was stationed with a guy who would use those two words as a response to just about anything you might tell him. I thought it was a pointless statement, but obviously a good political animal could certainly use it to great advantage - a mysterious two-word expression of interest, disinterest, or whatever the receiver wanted to hear.
The art of writing the headline - of painting a picture with words. Many are crafted to catch the eye (and hopefully sell newspapers) - and perhaps even create a buzz that could lead to more headlines. Truth and accuracy become disposable to that end, and even if some decision is made later to restore some degree of either, the damage done (and noted in Kabul, even) can't really be undone. (Was the descent into the maelstrom the landing in London or the return flight to war?)
But not every headline writer has to sell papers - though generally they do need to market ideas. Yesterday a Defense press release headlined Gates: Withdrawal from Afghanistan Would Embolden Radicals caught my eye like a message found in a bottle. But perhaps among all the things the secretary had said that was nothing more than a random selection...
And then there's today's headline in the New York Times, topping a story about the president's meeting with congressional leaders: Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force. He let them know "he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there," we learn in paragraph one.
And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Mr. Obama said, according to participants. "I put him there to give me a frank assessment."
And much of the sewage that's flowed in the form of news lately was squeegeed back, ironically with disclaimers like "...said one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting" as all the assignation we should ever expect.
For instance, "they" tell us the "Biden plan" "...would increase the use of such surgical strikes while leaving the overall size of the American force in Afghanistan roughly at the 68,000 troops currently authorized."
"Suspicions of friction..." - a great line, that.
"A more detailed battlefield assessment following the Oct. 3 attack in Nuristan has determined that enemy forces suffered more than 100 dead during the well-coordinated defense -- significantly higher losses than originally thought," the International Security Assistance Force announced yesterday from Kabul - in a press release titled simply "Update: ANSF, ISAF Repel Insurgent Attack in Eastern Afghanistan".
"The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we'll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.
But Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, smiled and raised her eyebrows in apparent disagreement.
Imagine that.
UPDATE ll: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! - Please read to the end of this update
Thanks everyone!
The remains of six of the eight servicemen killed in Saturday's firefight in Afghanistan have arrived at Dover:
Fort Carson's top general saluted the coffins of fallen soldiers from the post at a Delaware Air Force base Tuesday morning as details trickled out about some of the eight killed in a weekend battle in Afghanistan.
The flag-draped coffins were carried by Army pallbearers from a cargo jet that brought them on the last leg of a journey from the valley in eastern Afghanistan where as many as 200 insurgents led an assault on a compound held by the 4th Brigade Combat Team Saturday morning.
Eight soldiers died in the daylong fight that followed. The Americans fought fiercely to regain ground they lost in what is quickly becoming known as one of the most furious battles seen in eight years of fighting in Afghanistan.
The names of six men who died were released by officials at Dover Air Force Base on Tuesday. Full identification of the soldiers killed will be released by the Defense Department, but that was still pending on Tuesday.
About 50 family members watched rites at the base. The quiet ceremony was punctuated only by the sound of a crying child.
The six returned were
Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk of South Portland, Maine
Spec. Michael P. Scusa of Villas, N.J.
Spec. Christopher T. Griffin of Kincheloe, Mich.
Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson of Reno, Nev.
Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, of Savannah, Ga.
Spec. Stephen L. Mace of Lovettsville, Va.
Josh Donaway, a Fort Carson infantryman who got back from Iraq 10 months ago, put it more succinctly.
"It sucks," Donaway said, standing outside the apartment -- practically visible from Fort Carson's northern edge -- that he shares with his wife and their 2-year-old daughter.
Donaway said he heard about the deaths on television Monday just before he reported for work on the base. People weren't talking about it at work, he said, but it was there.
"You can't put a word on it. It's just a quiet, solemn feeling. Brothers fell in combat."
A few blocks away, 18-year-old Cedric Aldridge, who gave his Army rank as E3, watched workers install a new stereo in his gray sedan.
Aldridge said no one had talked about the eight dead when he was at work on base earlier Monday.
It's sad, he said, but not unexpected. "It's the nature of the beast."
<...>
Aldridge, meanwhile, said what happened over the weekend didn't change his feelings about his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan in August of next year."I'm ready to go," he said.
"I'm hyped up about it. I want to do my part as an American soldier."
Sgt Martin had emailed home before his death, and was looking forward to his unit's movement to a safer Forward Operating Base: "Wuts up? I'm good maintainin' we bout 2 move outta here & go 2 our main fob pretty soon. It's alot safer there & im tryn 2 stay there da rest of my deployment lol."
General McChrystal's strategy includes removing troops from remote outposts in isolated locations.
The U.S. military reported "a more detailed battlefield assessment following the Oct. 3 attack in Nuristan has determined that enemy forces suffered more than 100 dead during the well-coordinated defense -- significantly higher losses than originally thought." The announcement marked a departure from a policy announced in July to not release the numbers of Taliban and insurgents killed.
On the homefront you wait. And sometimes big stories with mass casualties make the news, and the waiting gets worse. And you know that even if your loved one is okay they can't contact you because communication will be blacked out until the families of the fallen have been notified. So you wait, and start to think if anything bad had happened to your soldier you would have known by now.
Right?
And maybe you hear about someone else who got the word, or maybe not.
And you wait and wait and wait and then you get the call - the one where you hear their voice on the other end - and then maybe you hear a little bit about what went on...
The morning began with the siren signaling incoming. I ignored it. I hate putting on my gear and besides the big boy voice had dutifully reminded me that I should remain in hard shelter. I didn't argue by deed or word. In the meantime the 155's began to blaze away in support of some action that did not affect me. Later I was called out of my room to help in the aid station. Two of the COB (combat operations base ) were in the midst of a full on assault by the Taliban...
And then you go back to waiting again.
More at the links, of course. All of them.
Michael O'Hanlon's Washington Post commentary appears at first glance to be a defense of General McChrystal - but it's more a reminder that because the General hasn't usurped the authority of the Commander in Chief by defending the strategy the President sent him to execute he is in no need of defense.
Those opposed to that strategy might feel threatened, but no one of consequence has dared claim ownership of that opposition (aside from unattributed reports of Joe Biden's position) or even acknowledged their offense. (A more suspicious mind than mine might begin to wonder if rumors of the existence of this "other side" might be little more than an effort to placate those who feel left out.)
The Washington Post has a big write up today about how the Obama administration has turned away from the Bush administration's approach to what used to be called the war on terror. Among other changes, less publicity for their efforts.
More here.Exclusive: Wounded U.S. Soldiers Refused to Leave Taliban Fight Afghan Attacks: Darkness, Smoke Forced Medevac Doctors to Work by Touch By KAREN RUSSO
KAMDESH, Afghanistan Oct. 5, 2009--
ABC News' Karen Russo was the only reporter to get to the scene of this weekend's bloody firefight between U.S. troops and hundreds of Taliban insurgents when she went in on a MEDEVAC helicopter. Here is her report:
Flying into the besieged Afghan base during a nighttime firefight this weekend was a harrowing mix of overwhelming noise, stomach dropping maneuvers and shadows hurrying through the gloom.
When the chopper lifted off moments later with three wounded soldiers, it left behind others who were wounded but refused to be MEDEVACED out of the combat zone so they could return to fight with their buddies.
Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell issued an opinion yesterday in the dispute over absentee ballots used by members of the armed forces, saying that they must be counted.
Last week, the Fairfax County registrar said about 100 of the federal ballots, which are used as backups to local absentee ballots by citizens abroad, did not comply with a state law that requires that they carry the signature and the address of a witness.
And "Republican John McCain's presidential campaign sued the Virginia election board Monday, claiming absentee ballots weren't mailed on time to military members serving overseas."
This year's news: "The Virginia State Board of Elections argued in their most recent filing that they have no legal obligation to send out military absentee ballots in a timely manner..."
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered a warning to President Obama today in remarks interpreted as a hint that the President wasn't taking the Afghanistan situation seriously, even in the wake of one of the most brutal Taliban assaults of the year. "I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency," the secretary asserted. Observers noted the comment could be perceived as another in a recent and troubling series of proclamations by increasingly vocal military leaders encroaching on the White House's prioritization of affairs of state.
Gates, the sole Cabinet holdover from the Bush administration, pointedly described violence in Afghanistan as on a "worrisome trajectory", noting violence levels in the country are up 60 percent from last year.
While refusing to divulge his position on any ongoing debate, Gates also cautioned members of the DoD that its resolution would not be to their liking - but that they should prepare now for the consequences. "Speaking for the Department of Defense, once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability," he said.
The actual quotations included above are accurate. What I've constructed from them should serve as a reminder of how easy it is to twist such quotes into whatever suits a writer's needs. For the real story, here's the actual DoD news release on the secretary's remarks. (Which, of course, is a transparent attempt at back-pedaling and damage control...)
(Sorry about that last line, my inner newspaper reporter escaped briefly again. Full text of the secretary's remarks here.)
Update After submitting this post for the Mrs Greyhawk review, she asked "So are you saying Gates is actually blasting Obama?"
"No," I replied, "and he isn't. I'm demonstrating that anyone can selectively use anyone else's statements to support anything they want. That's what reporters have done with McChrystal's statements..."
"But did you read the reports that Gates was actually bashing McChrystal in this speech?"
"No, I hadn't. But I'm not surprised."
Meanwhile, there are those who actually do think Obama is too busy to prioritize Afghanistan (because of global warming and health care and the economy and other concerns like the need to "appoint hundreds of people to various jobs and get them confirmed") compared to Bush who had nothing but Iraq on his mind and ignored the growing problems Obama now has to solve, and hey, Petraeus could run for President!
So time for a laugh break, says I.
To me it seems like not much of a story - but it's clearly the story that will not die:
Deep down, national-security conservatives know President Obama will not wage a decisive war against America's enemies in Afghanistan. They also know that the young men and women we already have there are sitting ducks. Ralph Peters notes that our commanders, obsessed with avoiding civilian casualties, have imposed mind-boggling rules of engagement (ROE) on our forces, compelling them to retreat from contact with the enemy and denying them resort to overwhelming force -- including the denial of artillery and air cover when they are under siege.
This story was included as part of a late update to an earlier one from over the weekend, but probably worth some additional consideration:
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
<...>
An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."
<...>
The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
<...>
A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.
<...>
White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.
<...>
As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.
Do any of these people actually exist, or are reporters just making them up?
Seriously, I can think of several alternatives to General McChrystal's plan for carrying out the administration's Afghan strategy, but certainly none I'd want my name associated with in any way, shape, or form. In D.C., no one in the administration (or the Pentagon) is willing to have their name associated with any alternative plan, but apparently many are willing to whisper to reporters that there is one and Biden thinks it's great.
Just something to think about.
Elsewhere, here's a report blaming the military and Karzai for not having troops out of Nuristan yet. That was fast.
(Many updates to earlier reports over the weekend. Much was going on...)
And an update to this post - the Christian Science Monitor:
One fundamental tenet of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial Afghanistan strategy aims at avoiding precisely the kinds of attacks that killed eight American soldiers Sunday.
That's the first line of the story, and it's an honest point that should be at or near the top of any coverage.
And for a close-up look at life in one of these remote combat outposts, here's a video report from last February from nearby Kunar Province. There's good reason for no one to want their name associated with an argument that delays putting an end to this.
And from Josh Foust, a look at the area around the Combat Outpost where last weekend's attack occurred. This is much more detail than you're likely to find in media accounts (at least until they lift it from him). Must read, indeed. I'd add only that HiG stands for Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, one of the three insurgent groups identified as major threats in General McChrystal's report.
"The fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners. "
U.S. Forces Afghanistan reports "eight ISAF and two ANSF service members" killed in action...
KABUL, Afghanistan (Oct. 4)- Two joint International Security Assistance Force and Afghan National Security Forces outposts were attacked in the Nuristan province of eastern Afghanistan Saturday morning.
Nuristani tribal militia launched the attacks from a local mosque and nearby village.
Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while eight ISAF and two ANSF service members were killed.
"My heart goes out to the families of those we have lost and to their fellow Soldiers who remained to finish this fight," said Col. Randy George, commander of Task Force Mountain Warrior. "This was a complex attack in a difficult area. Both the U.S. and Afghan Soldiers fought bravely together; I am extremely proud of their professionalism and bravery."
Names will be withheld pending next of kin notification.
