Mudville Gazette

G.I. wish I could go to college

Good News/Bad News

Obama Goes for Joe

The Latest

Posted by Greyhawk at 02:25 PM | Comments (4)

May 21, 2008

Daily Election Blog

Military.com has the Daily Election Blog that is comprised of military vets and military wives speaking on issues around the election. If you haven't been there yet, there's some very interesting stuff, although it does seem to be filled with a few fainting Obama fans. Author "Air Force Wife" is trying to fit in as a new contributor there, I say we support her with some comments.

Her latest post spawned some down right hateful comments.

We're Getting a Visitor!

I also found these post by other contributors interesting:

Technically, Obama IS a Muslim?

When Reality TV Goes to Washington

Posted by Mrs Greyhawk at 05:23 PM

United Nations Focuses, Children Hardest Hit

The AP reports on UN scrutiny of potential abuses by the United States:

The American military is holding about 500 juveniles in detention centers in Iraq and has about 10 detained at the military base at Bagram, Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations.

A total of 2,500 people under the age of 18, almost all in Iraq, have been detained for periods of up to a year or more since 2002, the United States reported last week to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Most are believed to be 16 or 17.
<...>
“The juveniles that the United States has detained have been captured engaging in anticoalition activity, such as planting improvised explosive devices, operating as lookouts for insurgents or actively engaged in fighting against U.S. and coalition forces,” the report said.
<...>
The American report pointed out, “Although age is not a determining factor in whether or not we detain an individual under the law of armed conflict, we go to great lengths to attend to the special needs of juveniles while they are in detention.”

However, "Human Rights" groups are outraged:

Civil liberties groups such as the International Justice Network and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced the detentions as abhorrent, and a violation of U.S. treaty obligations.
<...>
"It's shocking to me that the U.S. government has not figured out a way to keep children out of adult prisons. It's outrageous, and it is not making us any safer, I can say that about Afghanistan from personal experience," Tina M. Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, said Sunday.
<...>
Jamil Dakwar, director of the A.C.L.U.’s Human Rights Program, released a statement expressing his dismay.

“It is shocking to know that the U.S. is holding hundreds of juveniles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more disturbing that there is no comprehensive policy in place that will protect their rights as children,” it said.

Also included in the story...

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly in 1989, with backing at the time from the U.S. government of President Bill Clinton, and with strong lobbying from then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who now is competing for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with Barack Obama.

But somehow left out of the story...

In August, the military announced it had opened the first detention facility meant specifically to house juvenile prisoners. According to the American command in Baghdad, the Dar al-Hikmah facility houses some 600 detainees from 11 to 17 years old and provides “basic education instruction.”
<...>
The U.S. military says the first group of detainees to attend a seven-week education program at one of the military prisons in Iraq has “graduated.”

Dubbed “The Hasty School,” the program at Camp Bucca gave prisoners “seven weeks studying Arabic, English, math, science, geography and civics to a first to third-grade level,” according to a news release issued Tuesday.

Military officials said the program was part of several initiatives to steer prisoners away from violence or crime. Other initiatives have included education programs and youth art contests.

And in Baghdad:

CAMP CROPPER, Iraq — Sixteen students of the Dar al-Hikmah juvenile education center, or “House of Wisdom,” completed the school’s first civics course May 1, and their teacher could not have been happier with their performance.

During the 10-day civics course, students are taught a basic understanding of the importance of family, national service, Iraqi citizenship and the composition of the Iraqi government.
<...>
The civics course is poised for a larger enrollment in its second installation. Following the graduation of the 16 juvenile detainees from the first class, the second iteration, scheduled to begin later this week, has already received a voluntary enrollment of approximately 25 participants.

Dar al-Hikmah, which provides basic education to more than 500 juvenile detainees at the Camp Cropper Theater Internment Facility on Victory Base Complex, also provides programs in Arabic, history, science, geography, math and athletics.

*****

In other news:

A youthful suicide bomber killed at least 23 people Wednesday in an attack against relatives of Col. Faisal Ismail al-Zobaie, a U.S.-backed police chief and former insurgent who has turned against his onetime comrades.

Zobaie, the police chief of Fallujah in Anbar province, said a bomber of about 12 years of age attacked the funeral of Zobaie's uncle.

Elsewhere:

Militants linked to al-Qa’eda have set up training camps in Pakistan to teach children how to conduct suicide attacks.

The Pakistani army claimed today to have overrun one such camp in territory where the notorious Pakistani Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud, operates.

Militants had transformed a government-run school near the village of Spinkai in South Waziristan into what one officer described as a “nursery for preparing suicide bombers”.

The school was part of a large compound above the village that included a small mosque.

Maj Gen Tariq Khan, the commander of the division that captured the area, said: “It was like factory that had been recruiting nine to 12-year-old boys and turning them into suicide bombers.”

He told the Dawn newspaper that at another location military investigators found film footage on a DVD that they believed depicts children at the school being taught suicide training.

The footage, which was shown to journalists, contained images of a masked teacher instructing rows of schoolchildren who wore white headbands inscribed with Quranic verses.

Neither the UN or ACLU have commented on those stories.

*****

However, the ACLU is concerned for American children being abused by the US military, too. From their press release (which the AP reprinted nearly verbatim as their "news" story at the first link - minus this batshit crazy section):

The government claims in its report that Defense Department policy is not to recruit any youth under the age of 17, but a Pentagon-produced video game recruitment tool targets 13-year-olds, military training corps target youth as young as 11, and military handbooks instruct recruiters to target high school students as early as possible, says the ACLU.

"Contrary to the government report, recruitment does not begin when a high school senior signs a contract to enlist," said Jennifer Turner of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The government fails to acknowledge that recruiters contact, cultivate, and at times harass potential recruits long before they are old enough to sign up."

The government report also reveals the high number of youth of color among enlistees. In fiscal year 2007, 43 percent of all new under-18 enlistees in the Navy were black or Latino, along with 32 percent in the Air Force, 30 percent in the Marine Corps, and 22 percent in the Army. In its submission to the UN yesterday the ACLU charged that the military targets youth of color for military recruitment.

It's unclear from the press release whether the ACLU wants to prohibit the Navy from hiring "youth of color" altogether or simply set a UN-determined limit on how many can join.

*****

The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to question the U.S. delegation on its compliance with its obligations on May 22 in Geneva.

Al Qaeda has no treaty obligations, therefore their compliance or lack thereof is not an issue.

Posted by Greyhawk at 04:14 AM | Comments (6)

May 20, 2008

Via email...

From the White House:

Setting The Record Straight:

The following is a letter from Counselor to the President Ed Gillespie to NBC News President Steve Capus:

Steve Capus
President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President's remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel's question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.'s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,
Ed Gillespie
Counselor to the President

To View The Edited Version Of NBC News' Interview, Click Here

To View The Full Interview Of The President, Click Here

Kind of fun to see them hitting back. That email was sent with the links formatted, by the way.

Posted by Greyhawk at 12:54 AM | Comments (3)

May 19, 2008

Badger 6 Signing Off

Sad news today. Another fellow milblogger has joined the "Ghost battalion" (milblogs that quit blogging when their deployment end). Badger 6 came home the first week of May, 08 and has decided to hang up his camo keyboard.

B-6 has been instrumental in getting the ground truth out about what has been going on in Ramadi - Falluja. He shared the stories of the soldiers of Company A, 321st Engineer, the progress they made and the loses they incurred

All is not lost however, for those avid readers, he will continue to post occasionally at MilBlogs

Today is his Birthday, so please wish him well, and thank him for his service.

I'm going out of town so have no time to tell you all how much of a loss this is to the milblogging community, Greyhawk may add to this later.

Thank You B6 for making history. Hope to see you around MilBlogs.

Posted by Mrs Greyhawk at 12:46 PM

Mike Yon...

...on Michael Moore's crime.

Posted by Greyhawk at 10:36 AM

Keeping up...

...with the "Winter Soldiers" here.

Posted by Greyhawk at 10:13 AM

May 18, 2008

Hark, another phony soldier speaks...

Let's set the wayback machine for August, 2004. In the heat of a Presidential campaign pitting a Vietnam combat veteran against a former Air National Guard fighter pilot, Democrats used one of their other veterans to launch an attack on the Vice President...

Harkin also lashed out at Vice president Dick Cheney who last week accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lacking the basic understanding of the war on terrorism to protect Americans.

Harkin said “When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil.

Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough.

That CNN story has disappeared off the internet, but Fox coverage is still available:

DES MOINES, Iowa — Sen. Tom Harkin pushed the name-calling in the presidential race to a new level, calling Vice President Dick Cheney a coward for not serving in Vietnam and cowardly for his criticism of John Kerry.
<...>
He said President Bush and Cheney are "running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't."

But Donald Sensing (first link above) raised some questions on Harkin's own service record. And Glenn Reynolds found the story compelling enough to spend part of his lunch hour fact checking...

In a book called Stolen Valor : How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History, I found this passage, which is considerably worse for Harkin than Sensing's short summary. I'm reproducing it as an image for the benefit of doubters.
<...>
I also found an article from the Wall Street Journal, entitled "Harkin Presidential Bid Marred by Instances In Which Candidate Appears to Stretch Truth,"...
Mr. Harkin said at that meeting, in words that were later quoted in a book, Changing of the Guard, by Washington Post political writer David Broder. "One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaisance support missions. I did no bombing."

That clearly is not an accurate picture of his Navy service. Though Mr. Harkin stresses he is proud of his Navy record -- "I put my ass on the line day after day" -- he concedes now he never flew combat air patrols in Vietnam. . . .

Mr. Harkin's Navy record shows his only decoration is the National Defense Service Medal, awarded to everyone on active service during those years.

As professor Reynolds noted...

Two things bother me about this. One is that Harkin seems a rather odd choice for the Democrats as an attack dog. As Sensing notes, what are they thinking?

The other is that I managed to do this research over my lunch hour, but it doesn't seem to be noted in the press treatment of Harkin's charges by the people who get, you know, paid to do this stuff.

Yeah, funny, that. And it often bothers me, too.

But anyhow, that was 2004, and this year the Republicans are nominating a Vietnam combat veteran. In fact, he's a Navy fighter pilot (though unlike Harkin he flew combat missions).

Since neither of his potential opponents has any military experience (though Hillary Clinton once fabricated a story about being under fire in a combat zone and has that in common with Harkin) guess which veteran Democrats called on to insult him...

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
<...>
"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

I expect politicians to lie a little bit, but liars of Harkin's caliber are no better than the Jonathan Apontes of the world.

*****

My December, 2003 look at Stolen Valor here.

Another here. And here.

It really is a great book - get yours here.

Posted by Greyhawk at 12:30 AM | Comments (18)

May 17, 2008

Meet Jonathan Aponte

Jonathan Aponte comes home

The door to the doughnut shop swung open. For a moment, the tall young man, every bit a soldier in his bearing, stood with the windy rain of Friday afternoon at his back. A wave of coffee and doughnut humidity slapped him in the face.

His eyes swept across the shop. Then he spotted the older man seated at a table over a cup of decaf. Their eyes locked. The prodigal son had come home. The father rose. They hugged, with lots of thumping on the back instead of words.

But this "tall young man, every bit a soldier in his bearing" wasn't returning from Iraq - he was home from an eight-month stay in Rikers Island prison.

He had been to Iraq. But while home on leave last year he decided he didn't want to go back...

Home on leave for 10 days last year, Mr. Aponte entered into a marriage of extremely short duration with a young woman. The new bride either volunteered or was assigned to hire a gunman to shoot her new husband, carefully. She negotiated via text messages. Right after Mr. Aponte arrived in the hospital with his wounded leg and flimsy yarn about a mysterious assailant, the scheme collapsed, followed immediately by the marriage.

But as Aponte and his lawyer prepared his defense the anti-war left found a new hero. His publicity campaign was launched on CBS TV in New York

The death and destruction of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq seems to have become so rampant to one local soldier that he actually staged an attack on himself -- allegedly hiring a hitman to non-fatally shoot him -- so he wouldn't be sent back for another tour of duty.
<...>
"Bullets being shot at me, almost being hit, with car bombs, burning flesh," Aponte recalls of his first tour. Now the soldier, his mother, and lawyer all say his plot for pain proves he's a victim of post traumatic stress disorder caused by the horrific memories of battle.

His story fit the Iraq war narrative so popular among the easily swayed (see here here here...). While easily verifiable if true, none would question his claims of atrocities, suicides, PTSD, mortal combat against pregnant women and eight year olds with machine guns, and desperate efforts to avoid returning to the complete American defeat in Iraq. And each mainstream news report of his story would reinforce his claims with lead paragraphs like the one above, or this one from the New York Daily News:

The war in Iraq was such hell for Bronx soldier Jonathan Aponte he decided he'd never go back again - no matter what.

"I have nightmares all the time. I hear people screaming, gunshots, explosions, and I can smell burning flesh in my dreams," the 20-year-old told the Daily News yesterday as he fought back tears.

Rather than endure another tour of trauma, authorities say, Aponte hired a hit man to shoot him in the leg so he could stay home.
<...>
"I was desperate to stay home and at the end of my rope," Aponte said. "I couldn't deal with being in Iraq anymore. Would I risk going to prison? As far as being shot at, I think it's better."

Aponte believes the U.S. is losing the war and urged President Bush to bring "everyone back ASAP."

He said victory was virtually impossible when "we don't know who the enemy is. In Iraq, the enemy is dressed in street clothes, or they're pregnant ladies and sometimes even 8-year-olds with machine guns."

The ever-present death and destruction, he said, takes its toll on all soldiers.

On his first day of combat Aponte said a female sergeant killed herself in the middle of chow hall, an image he can't get out of his mind.

"She locked, loaded and shot herself in the head," he recalled. "I also saw people being shot and being blown up. I was shot at more than once by Iraqi insurgents. Being in Iraq was like something out of a movie. I was horrified to be there."

TV talk show host Star Jones even delayed an appearance by Grey's Anatomy co-star Isaiah Washington (who had lost his job and made headlines by allegedly referring to a gay fellow actor as a "faggot") to interview him:

On Tuesday, however, Jones called an audible -- delaying part two of Washington to spend more time with an Iraq war vet, Jonathan Aponte, who paid to have himself shot to avoid returning to duty. Aponte’s plight is depressing and poignant, but Jones couldn’t think of much more to say other than repeatedly asking him how he felt about it.

We already know how he felt about it. So perhaps it comes as no surprise that the Grand Jury investigating the shooting declined to indict Aponte:

His wife, Alexandra Gonzalez, and hit man Felix Padilla, who took $500 to shoot Aponte in the leg while he was home on leave in July, were indicted on assault charges.

The Bronx grand jury wouldn't indict Aponte, who won over the panelists with his tearful testimony.

More details:

The Bronx soldier accused of hiring a hit man to shoot him so he wouldn't have to return to active duty will be spared felony charges, but his wife and the gunman have been indicted by a grand jury, the Daily News has learned.

"I was hoping for the best, but preparing myself for the worst," Aponte, 21, told The News yesterday. "I am so happy that I was not indicted. I went into the grand jury and told the truth, and I think they had sympathy for me.

"I told the grand jury I just couldn't go back to Iraq after what I had experienced," he added. "I love my country and I wanted to serve, but I wasn't prepared to fight in the war or handle what I saw."
<...>
Aponte's mother, Gwen, said she is thankful and knows her son still has a long road in front of him.

"I am ecstatic and grateful that the people of New York had compassion for my son," said Gwen Aponte. "They understood his plight. My son is not well ... he is not the same boy I sent to the Army."

There was just one little catch. Aponte was still scheduled to appear in court for falsely reporting the incident, a misdemeanor charge. But before that trial, Aponte returned to Ft Hood. Reporters accompanied him - perhaps seeking a story of a hero's welcome. But shockingly, given that they had supposedly gone through the same mind-bending horrors Aponte had, the New York Daily News reported that Aponte wasn't greeted by a marching band and a cheering throng of fellow ~~soldiers~~ victims:

Bronx soldier Jonathan Aponte doesn't know yet if he'll be punished by his superiors, but he's already taking lumps from his peers.

Since returning to his base, the 20-year-old private has felt the scorn of other soldiers - through stares and words - who are appalled that he hired someone to shoot him in the leg to avoid returning to Iraq.
<...>
"I wouldn't want him next to me in combat - not a chicken like that," said Dee Xiong, 22, an infantryman set to redeploy in December after serving 10 months in Iraq.

"What he did was wrong," said a 20-year-old Army mechanic who served a year in Iraq. "You know what you sign up for and you just have to finish it out."

That response might be because they knew something the many reporters supporting Aponte did not (or chose not) to report.

Here's a myspace milblog response to Aponte from before the Grand Jury decision:

I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq. I was sent a copy of a story fox news morning show did on a "soldier" named Jonathan Aponte. Apparently Jonathan hired someone to shoot him in the leg to avoid returning to Iraq because he couldn't handle all the ..."chaos, blood and bombs.." I happen to know who this soldier is and I know first hand that his story of the horror he supposedly witnessed is a bald-faced LIE. Spc Aponte is in my Unit here in Iraq.

This soldier is a fueler for an aviation unit stationed at a large secure base in Iraq, and the only time he left this FOB (forward operating base) is when he got on a helicopter to catch a flight to the US via Kuwait. His job here consists of driving a fuel truck up and down the flight line pumping gas. He possibly worked up to 8 hours a day, but more than likely it was closer to 5 hours. The closest he came to seeing any combat action was playing video games on his XBox in his air conditioned room.

As for him supposedly seeing a female Sergeant First Class commit suicide in the middle of the "chow hall" that is just laughable. It never happened. He never went door to door clearing houses. He never witnessed body parts or dead people. He is just an irresponsible kid who decided he didn't like the Army. He is a phenomenal disgrace to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. He mocks the hard work and 12 to 15 hour days that majority of the soldiers here do without complaint. He demeans the Infantry troops that actually do go door to door clearing houses and regularly come into contact with enemy fire and IED's. He is a punk.

That any national media outlet would run this story without even bothering to verify a single allegation that this guy made makes me sick to my stomach. They went through the trouble of hiring an "expert" on PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) on the show, but they never even bothered to call the guys unit and verify that there was a chance he could be lying. How credible can a person be, who lied to the police about hiring someone to shoot him.

By the time of his misdemeanor trial, New York prosecutors had some "new" information...

Assistant District Attorney James P. Cudden told the court that investigators had determined that Private Aponte lied to a grand jury about his experiences in Iraq. Private Aponte did not witness a soldier’s suicide, as he claimed, and was not under fire in combat, Mr. Cudden said, adding that Private Aponte was a supply clerk on a military base and was never involved in any hostilities.

Why that wasn't available to the Grand Jury (or whether it would alter the feelings of a random group of New Yorkers) is anyone's guess.

More:

A Bronx soldier who hired a hit man to shoot him in the leg so he wouldn't have to go back to Iraq was sentenced to a year in jail yesterday after admitting he lied about being in combat and witnessing atrocities.

For months, Jonathan Aponte detailed the horrors he'd seen in combat, talking of the smell of burning flesh, the sound of car bombs and the horror of "being shot at every day" by insurgents.

The 20-year-old's story garnered him sympathy nationwide and he was invited on the Star Jones show to pour out his heart.

In a stunning reversal, prosecutors said yesterday it was all made up: Aponte worked in a warehouse during his Iraq tour and never saw combat.

"Mr. Aponte's testimony that he saw a female sergeant commit suicide less than 50 feet away from him was not true," Bronx Assistant District Attorney James Cudden said.

"Stories about people dying in front of his eyes were not true. Mr. Aponte worked in a warehouse that stocked helicopters. He did not go to combat."

Faced with potential felony perjury charges, Aponte pleaded guilty in Bronx Criminal Court to a misdemeanor of false reporting.
<...>
Aponte had said he told them, "I have nightmares all the time. I hear people screaming, gunshots, explosions, and I can smell burning flesh in my dreams."

For what it's worth, Aponte's lawyer was quick to claim that Aponte's first response to being caught in a lie regarding his shooting was actually true, and that his admission that it was actually another lie was the real lie, told to spare his family further pain:

Aponte's lawyer Marty Goldberg said his client maintains that he told the truth, but decided to cop the plea to avoid putting his family through any more agony.

"It's a sad story," Goldberg said. "The prosecution said he lied, but that's their opinion. He didn't believe it was in his best interest to go to trial.

Sadly, no reporters bothered to verify any of the claims - which should have been fairly easy given that whatever Aponte did in Iraq, he didn't do it alone. (Or if they did verify, they chose not to report their discoveries.)

Which brings us back to the present. Aponte is home, and after his eight month stay in prison (we'll assume he got time off from his year for good behavior) the NY Times explains that he only joined to get an education:

In the late winter of 2004, Mr. Aponte was hanging around outside a friend’s store on Westchester Square in the Bronx. “This guy in uniform came up to me and said, ‘You look like you’re in decent shape,’ ” Mr. Aponte said. “I told him, ‘Yeah, I do my pushups now and then.’ He said, ‘You ought to think about the military.’ ”

Mr. Aponte had not finished high school but he had earned a general equivalency diploma, and he worked occasionally in a barbershop.

And concludes the story with an interesting spin:

For now, Mr. Aponte appears to be one of the very few people in America — if not the only one — to go to jail for lying about the Iraq war, a conflict nurtured in the deceptions and errors of people in positions of great responsibility.

Actually, the story isn't complete. Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Padilla are still awaiting trial on charges of felony assault.

Update: Somewhat related discussions at MilBlogs - here and here (scroll a bit - multiple entries at the second link), as yet another spinner of "atrocity" tales rears his ugly little head (and makes headlines for doing so).

Posted by Greyhawk at 02:35 PM | Comments (4)

May 15, 2008

The Latest

From Politico:

With Memorial Day around the corner, Sen. John McCain and his allies are reaching out to Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb in the hope of finding a compromise on a GI Bill that would eliminate a potential embarrassment for the Arizona Republican’s presidential campaign.
<...>
It was McCain who instigated a letter to Webb signed by himself and two fellow Republicans on Monday, in an effort to end a standoff between the two Vietnam veterans. Discussions followed Tuesday between Webb and McCain ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and late in the day there was a staff meeting that lasted more than an hour.

It is too early to predict what will come of the discussions, but Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who has served as an intermediary of sorts between the Webb and McCain camps, was hopeful.

“I think it’s an exciting chapter. I’m enjoying every minute of it,” Warner told Politico. “We’re going to get it. I’ll bet your bottom dollar we get it. ... I’ll give you odds we’re going to win.”

Webb has steadily picked up support for his proposal and this week moved within two votes of the 60 needed to overcome procedural obstacles in the Senate.
<...>
Webb is in a strong enough political position that he will be reluctant to make major changes. But it is also in the Virginian’s interest to bring as many senators, including his friend McCain, into the same camp.

The letter sent Monday is conciliatory in tone, expressing a “sincere interest in working with you on one of the most important issues that may come before the Senate this year: a revitalized GI Bill program.”

“Each of us supports increasing education benefits for our nation’s veterans, and we believe this must be accomplished as quickly as possible,” reads the letter, signed by McCain, Graham and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). The three Republicans go on to say that they have “never disagreed with the overall intent” of the Webb bill but would like more attention to problems of recruitment and retention as well as “in-service education of career servicemen and women.”

Read the whole thing - along with coverage of the Republican attempt to attach their alternative bill to other legislation in the Senate (and no matter how you may feel about it, that bill has a snowball's chance), a House proposal to "tax the rich" to pay for the benefit, and a Senate vow to eliminate that provision.

I checked McCain's campaign blog for any mention of the GI Bill issue (specifically I was hoping to see the full text of that letter) - but they're currently foot stomping McCain's solution for "climate change".

Update: GI Bill Passes Senate

Posted by Greyhawk at 01:00 AM | Comments (5)

May 13, 2008

Obama Goes for Joe

That's G.I. Joe - but who knows where Joe goes come November?

*****

Barack Obama's brief appearance in West Virginia should serve as a warning to John McCain. The Charleston, West Virginia Gazette headlines their story on his appearance there "Obama pushes for new GI Bill":

"I'm honored that some of you will support me, and I understand that many more here in West Virginia will probably support Senator Clinton," he told the crowd at the Civic Center.

"But when it's over, what will unify us as Democrats - what must unify us as Americans - is an unyielding commitment to the men and women who've served this nation and an unshakable fidelity to the ideals for which they've risked their lives."

That's a telegraphed punch. Obama acknowledges he expects Hillary Clinton to get as much as 80% of the West Virginia primary vote. So he quite wisely turns his focus to his next opponent, and the issue that will ensure the Vietnam veteran loses the military/veteran vote in November - the new GI Bill.

In response, McCain and other Republicans are busy creating "kick me" signs to wear throughout the upcoming political season.

The proposed 21st Century GI Bill would allow soldiers to receive free tuition for college. Obama said it is one of a number of upgrades to GI benefits and healthcare the federal government should provide.

"It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention," Obama told about 1,500 people at the Charleston Civic Center. After that, he stopped to shoot a game of pool with a veteran at a South Charleston pub.

The Illinois Democrat said McCain, whom he added he greatly respects as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, doesn't like the new plan.

"He is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I couldn't disagree more.

"At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American dream."

In fairness it must be noted that McCain supports a hastily contrived Republican alternative to the Webb bill that offers lower benefits and covers fewer troops - and has no chance of passing in a Democrat-controlled congress. But while he simplifies the issue here, Obama's characterization of McCain's opposition is on the mark.

Here's a comparison of the competing GI Bills in Stars and Stripes - the semi-independent military newspaper. Note that in addition to Senator Obama, mainstream veterans' groups (including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars) have strongly endorsed the Webb bill.

If McCain doesn't act fast (specifically, endorse the Web bill before this issue expands nationwide) my forecast will prove correct. And once newspapers and evening news stories begin headlining the growing (and glowing) military (bear in mind that active duty folks won't be specifically endorsing candidates) and veteran support for Obama a cascade among other voters (at least those swayed by military-related issues; war for example) is likely to begin. Talking points, sincere explanations, and rationalizations won't change that at all.

Update: The Latest

*****

Previous entries (please read before explaining to me how little I know about this issue)

G.I. wish I could go to college

Good News/Bad News

Posted by Greyhawk at 10:53 PM | Comments (24)

May 12, 2008

And another "tune in"

JD Johannes of Outside the Wire will be a guest on the Dennis Miller radio program today.

Posted by Greyhawk at 10:27 AM

May 11, 2008

Tune in Tonight

"America's Favorite Moms" from several categories will be crowned tonight. NBC, 7PM eastern/6 central. We'll be watching at haus Greyhawk, and ready to cheer for Patti.

Update: Golf ran late, so NBC bumped the show in our area (if they ran it at all) but...

SOLDIERS' ANGELS FOUNDER WINS!

Patti Patton-Bader Named "America's Favorite Mom"

May 11, 2008, PASADENA, CA -Soldiers' Angels founder Patti Patton-Bader was named "America's Favorite Mom" in a primetime television show Sunday night on NBC. Sponsored by Teleflora and hosted by Donnie and Marie Osmond, the show highlighted fifteen outstanding mothers who had distinguished themselves in categories ranging from Working Moms to Military Moms and "Non-Mom" Moms.

Humbled by the honor, Patton-Bader is thrilled to be able to use it to continue the Soldiers' Angels mission of "May No Soldier Go Unloved." As the grand prize winner, she will receive $250,000, a set of household appliances, and other valuable items. Patton-Bader hopes to apply the winnings to her plans for a small ranch that will allow newly returned soldiers to relax with their families after deployments.

"I really am lucky to know so many heroes in my life," said Patton-Bader, who herself has two sons in the Army, one currently deployed to Iraq. "Whether they are the troops who serve our country or the amazing mothers here on this America's Favorite Mom program, I am honored to be in the presence of such inspirational people and also am humbled to know that America thinks the same of me."

Patton-Bader is also excited about the opportunities this platform gives her to help people learn more about America's military heroes and options for supporting them and their families. The attention she has received through the America's Favorite Mom events has already drawn a number of new volunteers who want to use their talents and connections to help support the troops.

In a nationwide online poll last March, Patton-Bader was voted "America's Most Inspirational Mom" after having been nominated by her eldest son for founding and leading Soldiers' Angels. On May 5, 2008 she appeared on the Today show as one of three selected finalists in the "Favorite Military Mom" category. A nationwide online poll was again conducted, and the results were announced on May 11, 2008 with Patton-Bader being named winner in both the "Favorite Military Mom" and "America's Favorite Mom" categories. More information is available at www.americasfavoritemom.com.

Soldiers' Angels is a grassroots 501(c)(3) non-profit comprised of around 200,000 volunteers in over twenty different teams and programs with unique and effective ways to support members of the U.S. military. Soldiers' Angels operates internationally to provide letters, care packages, and comfort items to the deployed, and support for their families at home. They also provide assistance to the wounded, continuing support for veterans, remembrances and comfort for families of the fallen, and immediate response to unique difficulties. For more information, see www.soldiersangels.org or call (615) 676-0239.

America's Favorite Mom was presented by NBC Television and Teleflora, America's leading source of hand-arranged floral bouquets, plants, and gift baskets. For more information, see www.americasfavoritemom.com.

"May no soldier go unloved, may no soldier walk alone, may no soldier be forgotten, until they all come home." ~ Patti Patton-Bader.

Posted by Greyhawk at 08:22 PM | Comments (2)

May 10, 2008

G.I. wish I could go to college

Or "Doin' the Joes - Blue Doggy Style!!"

Continuing our coverage of the progress of the "new GI Bill" through congress.

Previously:

Good News/Bad News

*****

The Hill:

“Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers,” said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition who serves on the House leadership team as a deputy whip.

But have you ever heard of "Blue Dog Democrats" stopping a bill before this one? Probably not. Here's one explanation for that, from Travis Sharp "...the Military Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.":

Blue Dogs' opposition to GI money in supp is inconsistent
Restoring fiscal responsibility to Congress is a laudable goal, and Blue Dogs are to be applauded for insisting that responsible budgeting be a key issue within their party. However, a quick look at how Congress has dealt with recent supplemental funding bills shows that while Blue Dogs may object to the current GI proposal being off-budget, they have supported both war-related and non-war-related off-budget supplemental spending in years past.
<...>
Congress has stuffed billions of dollars of non-war-related spending into supplementals, especially since Democrats regained the majority in 2007 and began using war supplementals as vehicles for their domestic funding priorities. Surely Blue Dogs voted against the “fiscally irresponsible” domestic spending in these previous supplementals, just as they currently oppose spending on GI educational benefits, right?

Wrong.

Take for example the fiscal year 2007 supplemental approved in May 2007, which, at $120 billion, stands as the largest supplemental in history. Approximately $20 billion of this bill went to programs that, given their current opposition to GI benefits, Blue Dogs should have regarded as fiscally irresponsible. These included $4.8 billion in veterans’ health care, $6.4 billion in Hurricane Katrina relief, and $3 billion in drought assistance for farmers.

When House Democrats complained that they wanted to be able to vote against the $100 billion in war funding but vote for the $20 billion in domestic funding, the Democratic leadership charitably elected to split the fiscal year 2007 supplemental into two separate amendments and hold two separate votes.

Guess how many Blue Dogs voted against Amendment #1, the amendment chocked full of non-war-related money? Not one. In fact, only one Democrat voted against it, the always-contrarian Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).

Why do some Blue Dogs think it is okay to abrogate fiscal responsibility on $700 billion in war funding to date, along with $20 billion in unrequested domestic pork-barrel spending in the Fiscal Year 2007 supplemental, but not okay to approve $5 billion per year in off-budget spending for GI benefits over the next decade?

If they want to use procedural excuses to explain why they don't want to add $50 billion in debt over the next ten years to finance veterans' benefits, they should at least be forced to explain why they have not taken such a principled procedural stance on previous supplemental funding.

Speaking of "$3 billion in drought assistance for farmers", meet Ken Cook:

Ken Cook is president of Environmental Working Group, a public interest research and advocacy organization known for its Farm Subsidy Database. The author of dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports on agricultural, public health and environmental topics, "[Cook's] fingerprints can be found on nearly two decades of U.S. farm law"

Ken says:

Maybe House Democrats riled up about the Blue Dogs' position on education benefits for veterans should stage a revolt themselves--by signalling support for Bush's promised veto of the farm bill.

After all, Blue Dogs are mopping up billions in that legislation, which Speaker Pelosi is strong-arming her caucus to support. We know that at least $5.9 billion in "direct payment" farm subsidies will go to farmers in Blue Dog districts over the next five years, despit the sky-high crop prices and record incomes that subsidy crop farmers will be earning.

How "fiscally responsible" is that?

Earl Pomeroy's farmers will get $1.1 billion from taxpayers. Marion Berry's will get $965 million. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's will haul in over $800 million.

And Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who has been saying the payments are "hard to defend" when farmers' incomes are at record levels, will bring home $691 million in direct payment subsidies under the bill.

Here's a complete list of the direct payments Blue Dogs are projected to haul in over the next five years.

It seems that money spent on veterans is the first time some of these folks decided to just say no.

I think I'm inclined to agree with Paul Reickoff again - the issue the Blue Dogs are raising is moot:

The GI Bill belongs in the emergency supplemental because it is a cost of war, and it's part of our promise to care for our troops. It's no different from bullets, body armor or bandages for the wounded. This bill has the support of more than half the House and half the Senate, and we expect to get past these procedural hurdles. At the end of the day, no patriotic American would understand if a member of Congress votes for a $100-plus billion dollar war bill and then nickel-and-dimes the troops who are fighting that war.

But in addition to "fiscal responsibility", the Blue Dogs might have other "concerns"

Leadership faces more than the normal Caucus reluctance that has come to define consideration of the war supplemental, with Blue Dogs remaining a major obstacle to bringing the bill to the floor.
<...>
Caucus sources said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., is particularly incensed that a veterans' tuition package by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is in the measure instead of the bipartisan package she sponsored in the House.

Meanwhile, The American Legion takes a stand:

The leader of the nation’s preeminent veterans organization criticized Congress for delaying a needed GI Bill because of cost. Improvements to the current GI Bill, like its predecessors, will serve as the ultimate stimulus package for veterans, their families, and for the nation.

“When The American Legion championed the original Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, even some veterans groups complained that it would ‘break the treasury,” National Commander Marty Conatser said. “Instead, the GI Bill transformed the economy and has been widely hailed as the greatest domestic legislation Congress ever passed. The critics were wrong then and they are wrong now.”

Conatser pointed out that while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill, S-22, would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years, “it is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the sacrifices made by America’s servicemembers and their families.”

The debate over the cost for the original World War II-era GI Bill was unpersuasive to its author, American Legion Past National Commander Harry Colmery. “If we can spend 200 to 300 billion dollars to teach our men and women to kill, why quibble over a billion or so to help them to have the opportunity to earn economic independence and to enjoy the fruits of freedom?” he asked at the time.

Over the decades, the GI Bill has enabled millions of veterans to attend college and is estimated by some economists to have returned $7 to the economy for every $1 in cost. However soaring tuition and decreases in program benefits over the years has left higher education out of reach for many current veterans.

Concerns that the new GI Bill, proposed by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., would hurt military retention are unfounded, according to The American Legion. “This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military,” Conatser said. “As far as retention goes, the CBO estimates that a simple $8,000 bonus to personnel at their first enlistment point would increase reenlistments by 2 percentage points. Another way to encourage mid-level servicemembers to stay in the military is to transfer GI Bill benefits to family members so the servicemember can remain in the military and still benefit from the program.”

Conatser had a suggestion to critics who believe the GI Bill is too expensive. “Visit Walter Reed. War is expensive indeed and the bulk of that cost is paid for by the men and women who wear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war.”

“The GI Bill is important enough to stand on its own merit,” concludes Conatser. “I have faith in the American people that they will demand that Congress pass the GI Bill, which truly expresses the thanks of a grateful nation for service above and beyond that of normal citizenship.”

And the Veterans of Foreign Wars followed up its earlier endorsement of the bill with a call to action

VFW Washington Weekly, May 9, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008 at 07:50 PMby Missouri

1. GI Bill Call to Action: The VFW still needs you to urge your senators to support S. 22, and your representatives to support H.R. 5740, so that the VFW goal of creating a new GI Bill for the 21st century becomes a reality. As of this morning, 57 senators are supporting S. 22, a number that is unchanged from last week. Introduced by Jim Webb (D-VA), S. 22 has strong bipartisan support from fellow senators such as Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Warner (R-VA). Its companion bill in the House, H.R. 5740, increased by 27 to 293 co-sponsors, or 67% of the House. Introduced by Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), it, also has strong bipartisan support from fellow congressmen such as Bill Young (R-FL) and Chris Smith (R-NJ). America's newest Greatest Generation needs your help to bring educational benefits back in line with current day tuitions. Use this link to contact your members: http://capwiz.com/vfw/dbq/officials/.

They won't receive G.I. Bill benefits for it, but note how quickly an Army of Davids has come together on this issue. If it isn't obvious from the variety of links above, this bill has strong support from a wide variety of groups. Opposing it at this point is political suicide.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi assured voters that the bill would eventually pass:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that stalling tactics by Republicans might result in the measure not coming up until next week.

Whoops - wrong quote - that was Wednesday, before her fellow Democrats stalled the vote. I'll try again.

Meanwhile

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

Whoops - wrong again. That was Iraqi government inaction she was criticizing. One more try...

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi says "she is confident the impasse with the rebel Democrats can be ironed out."

Got it that time.

And if you're interested in the actual text (surprisingly brief) of that Congressional Budget Office report on the cost of the bill, it's at this link (and also below).

May 8, 2008
Honorable Judd Gregg
Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator:
On May 5, 2008, you requested that CBO provide information about the cost of S. 22, the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, including its impact on the retention of military personnel. CBO has reviewed several versions of S. 22, most recently a modified version of that bill provided to CBO by Senator Webb’s office on April 23, 2008. We have completed a preliminary estimate of the mandatory and discretionary costs of that modified language.
Preliminary Estimate of Costs for S. 22
The modified version of S. 22 would increase the amount of the education benefits available to veterans and to active-duty and reserve servicemembers; expand the number of individuals eligible to receive such benefits; increase the period of time during which such benefits could be used; and allow the benefits to be used to cover an expanded array of education-related expenses. CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would increase direct spending for veterans’ and reservists’ education benefits by $51.8 billion over the 2008-2018 period (see attached table).

S. 22 (as modified) also would increase spending subject to appropriation in
several ways. CBO estimates that implementing the proposal would:
• Increase costs to the Department of Veterans Affairs for personnel and information technology,
• Decrease costs to the Department of Defense (DoD) to maintain current levels of enlistment,
• Increase DoD’s cost to maintain current levels of retention, and • Decrease DoD’s contributions to fund education benefits for reservists. In total, CBO estimates that the bill would increase discretionary spending by $145 million over the 2009-2013 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

Impact of S. 22 on Recruitment and Retention
You requested specific information regarding our estimate of the impact of S. 22 (as modified) on the retention of personnel by the Armed Forces. CBO expects that both enlistment and retention would be affected by the proposed improvement in education benefits. The net impact on DoD’s discretionary costs for those purposes would be an increase of $1.1 billion over the 2009-2013 period. That net change reflects the expected cost of increased bonus payments for reenlistment ($6.7 billion), less the estimated savings for enlistment bonuses and other recruiting costs ($5.6 billion). (The net discretionary costs described above include this $1.1 billion, as well as offsetting savings to DoD from other aspects of the legislation.)

To maintain current levels of enlistment and retention, DoD incurs costs for advertising, recruiters, enlistment bonuses, and retention bonuses. An enhanced package of education benefits would make military service more attractive, and increasing those benefits would allow the services to reduce other enlistment incentives while still enlisting the same number of recruits. However, because the higher educational benefits would reduce the costs of attending college after military service, enacting S. 22 (as modified) also would increase the number of servicemembers who would separate from military service to take advantage of those benefits. Additional reenlistment incentives would then be required to keep the number of reenlistments, and the experience profile of the military force, constant.

Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits. To maintain the same force levels and thus the same number of recruits, enlistment bonuses and other recruiting costs could be reduced.

The marginal cost of enlistment bonuses and the other expenditures necessary to attract an additional enlistment is about $35,000. CBO estimates that reduced spending for those purposes would result in a savings of almost $5.6 billion over the 2009-2013 period.

Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point—from about $40,000 to over $90,000—implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. CBO assumes that to maintain the same force size, the services would offer selective reenlistment bonuses (SRBs). An $8,000 bonus to personnel at the first reenlistment point is estimated to increase reenlistments by about 2 percentage points. Thus, CBO estimates that SRBs of about $25,000 for each first-term servicemember who reenlists would offset the expected effects on retention of increased educational benefits, resulting in a cost of $6.7 billion over the 2009-2013 period for additional reenlistment bonuses.

You also asked about the impact on retention of S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act of 2008. CBO has not yet completed its estimate of the impact of that legislation on costs or retention rates.

Update: Obama goes for Joe

Posted by Greyhawk at 03:35 AM | Comments (2)

May 09, 2008

Beating the Odds

Glenn Reynolds:

IN TENNESSEE 300 National Guard soldiers from Campbell County just got back from Iraq, after a year in which they suffered no casualties. Congratulations, and welcome back.

And they were outside the wire:

The units spent most of the past year hauling equipment through Iraq. They covered more than 1.6 million miles, according to the National Guard - all without a single casualty.

That reminds me of this story from January '07:

The Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, sergeant was responsible for more than 800 convoys during his deployment in support of OIF. His expert leadership resulted in the convoys traveling more than 450,000 miles across Iraq without a single casualty or injury.

So I suppose the surge really hasn't made things better in Iraq.

Elsewhere, JP Borda prepares to pop smoke:

You'll be happy to know we've completed our final mission just a few days ago. All Bad Voodoo soldiers are safe and off the road.

Posted by Greyhawk at 10:10 AM

Back to My War

Colby Buzzell:

Since the Army was kind enough to send me an invitation to go back to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I decided to R.S.V.P. to it by writing a little Op-Ed piece about it for the San Francisco Chronicle.

I guess meeting recruiting and retention goals isn't enough.

Posted by Greyhawk at 09:47 AM | Comments (3)

Good News/Bad News

Looks like somebody's got some politickin' to do:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pulled the bill from the schedule Wednesday night after conservative-to-moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats revolted over Democratic leaders' insistence on including in the war funding bill an unrelated provision to sharply increase education benefits for veterans under the GI Bill.

The new GI Bill — designed to give Iraq war veterans enough help to finance a four-year stint at a public college — would cost $51 billion over 10 years. It runs afoul of a rule designed to prevent new benefit programs from causing the deficit to spiral.

The Democratic rebels are the House's top supporters of "pay as you go" budget rules that require that new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to increase. The war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.

"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.

Meanwhile, White House budget director Jim Nussle weighed in Thursday with renewed veto threats against rival House and Senate Iraq funding bills, saying the add-ons for veterans and an extension of unemployment benefits were unacceptable.

"To just pile them into the troop funding bill because the troop funding bill is necessary is a cynical process that the president has already been very clear about — the fact that he would veto," Nussle told The Associated Press.

More:

"It does not honor veterans to borrow Chinese yuan to pay for these benefits," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a leader of the 47-member House Blue Dog Coalition, which opposes deficit spending.

Budget experts outside Congress were even more incensed. David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general who has said the nation faces $53 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the coming century, called it "morally reprehensible." Criticism also came from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition deficit watchdog group.

"No matter how laudable the intended purpose and no matter how important the targeted population is, the absolute last thing we ought to be doing is expanding entitlement benefits," Walker said.

Veterans' groups reacted warily to the moderate Democrats' intervention. "I think their bark is a lot worse than their bite," said Patrick Campbell, legislative director for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "I don't think any one of these people want to be on the record for voting against the GI bill."

If the bill becomes law, it would be the third time that House Democrats have violated the rule they passed last year to pay for new spending or tax cuts. They did not pay for the two-year, $168 billion economic-stimulus package passed in February or a $50 billion tax cut last December.

Negotiations over the next few days will focus on how to pay for the education benefit. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday she wants to keep it in the bill. "We are going to say 'thank you' to our vets. 'Now you can go to college if you wish,' " she said.

The war-funding bill needs to be passed by next month, or the Defense Department will begin sending furlough notices to civilian employees.

Update: GI Wish I Could go to College

Previous coverage:

Posted by Greyhawk at 09:24 AM

May 08, 2008

Awaiting Confirmation,

...nice if it's true:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was arrested in the northern city of Mosul, the Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

Spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said the arrest of al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, was confirmed to him by the Iraqi commander of the province. There was no immediate confirmation or comment from U.S. forces on the arrest.

The U.S. military in Baghdad said "we are currently checking with Iraqi authorities to confirm the accuracy of this information."

In an amazing coincidence, this is almost exactly the one-year anniversary of his death.

Update:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A man seized by Iraqi forces in the northern city of Mosul is not Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, a senior U.S. military official said on Friday.

"He has not been detained," the official told Reuters, without giving further details. Several Iraqi officials had earlier said Masri had been captured in an operation late on Wednesday.

Posted by Greyhawk at 09:50 PM

Nice Boy Update

Nice to see this story catching on - even if the spin begins...

Headlines:

CBS/AP: Ex-Guantanamo Prisoner ID'd As Iraq Bomber. The story includes a picture borrowed from this link (wonder how they found it?) along with this amazing spin:

Wilner called the alleged suicide attack a "tragedy" that could have been avoided with court hearings for prisoners held at Guananamo [sic], where the U.S. now holds about 270 men.

"The lack of a process results in tragic mistakes on both sides," the lawyer said.

Associated Press: US: Former Gitmo prisoner carries out recent attack in Iraq

Al-Ajmi's American lawyer said incarceration at Guantanamo may have turned the Kuwaiti into a terrorist.

CNN: Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight

Al-Ajmi is not the first former Guantanamo detainee to reportedly return to the battlefield after being released. Pentagon officials say there are more than 10 people once held by the U.S. at Guantanamo who have been killed or captured in fighting after being released from the detention facility.

"Our reports indicate that a number of former [Guantanamo Bay] detainees have taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat," said Cmdr. Jeff Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

AFP: Suicide attacker was former Guantanamo detainee: US military:

The Pentagon has publicly identified 13 former Guantanamo detainees who have gone back to the fight since their release.

But a Defense Intelligence Agency report dated May 1, 2008 says that 36 former detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to terrorism, said a US defense official who asked not to be identified.

The Guardian: Ex-Guantánamo prisoner took part in Iraq bombing, says US

Fears case will harm civil rights bid to free inmates

The involvement of an ex-Guantánamo detainee will make it harder for civil rights lawyers in the US and Britain, who have been fighting for the release of the remaining prisoners at the camp complex in Cuba.
<...>
The Democratic and Republican candidates to replace President George Bush in January next year have promised to close the camp.

*****

Hat tip: Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families - who are following this story closely.

Previous entry: Such a Nice Boy

Posted by Greyhawk at 02:21 PM

Update: The New GI Bill

Here's the latest on the GI Bill for the 21st Century. (Links to earlier related entries are provided at the bottom for those who might need to catch up.) I'm going to steal Lt Nixon's good, bad, and ugly format for this one, because it fits perfectly.

The Good: The House will vote on the new GI Bill today (more on that shortly). Meanwhile, the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee conducted hearings yesterday:

At Wednesday’s hearing, three major veterans’ groups — the American Legion, AmVets and Paralyzed Veterans of America — are expected to endorse S 22, the benefits bill sponsored by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., over the Republican bill, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Veterans’ groups also are expected to directly contradict Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ opposition to S 22 on the grounds that it would hurt the all-volunteer force by encouraging people to get out of the military.

The Republican alternative bill offers significant improvement over the current Montgomery GI Bill, and would offer better benefits to those who've served longer (I'm among that group) than S22 - but has no chance of passing in a Democrat-controlled congress. I can accept reality on that issue - the Webb bill is fine by me, too.

The bad - back to those Senate hearings:

The Department of Veterans Affairs seemed to be standing in front of a fast-moving train Wednesday when a top official said VA would need two years of preparation to come up with a payment system for a proposed overhaul of GI Bill education benefits.

The warning flags were waved by Keith Pedigo, VA’s associate deputy undersecretary for policy and program management, who said meeting an Aug. 1, 2009, effective date for the benefits increases, under what lawmakers are calling the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights, would be extremely difficult.

Because the proposal calls for the maximum benefit to be different in each state, payments would have to be manually, rather than automatically, processed, Pedigo said.

“VA does not now have a payment system or the appropriate number of trained personnel to administer the program,” Pedigo said, predicting it would take two years to develop a payment system to provide the new benefits.

That's a valid concern - and there are other "21st Century" details to work out:

Pedigo also warned of fundamental unfairness in a proposed housing allowance that would be based on where a school is located, rather than where a student lives, which could encourage veterans to enroll in online learning programs offered by schools in high-cost areas.

And, meanwhile...

The Pentagon, VA and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget oppose S 22, either as a separate bill or combined with the supplemental.

..but it is a "fast-moving train" - for now.

The Ugly - meanwhile, over in the House...

Setting up their last major battle over war policy with President Bush, House Democrats yesterday unveiled a plan to link their favored domestic spending projects and a troop-withdrawal timeline to additional funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan requested by the White House.

...and there's the rub. They aren't debating the Gi Bill as a stand-alone - that would be unstoppable legislation, no one could oppose it and survive. They're tacking it on to the war funding bill, along with these measures:

House Democrats, defying President Bush's threat of a veto, will offer a supplemental appropriation bill tomorrow that continues funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but includes other provisions opposed by the White House. The three amendments include:

Amendment 1:

· $162.6 billion to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into 2009.

Amendment 2:

· A requirement to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days of passage, with a goal of having all troops out of Iraq by December 2009 (except those providing embassy security).

· A mandate that any unit deployed to Iraq must meet Pentagon requirements that it be "fully mission capable."

· An anti-torture provision that requires the CIA to comply with interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual.

Amendment 3:

· $1.2 billion for global food aid.

· $5.8 billion to repair levees in Louisiana.

· An additional $11 billion over 10 years for unemployment compensation.

· An expansion of education benefits for returning troops.

Some of those add-ons won't make it through the Senate next week. But others will, and the President has vowed to veto any bill that exceeds his original $108 billion request.

But Democrats are less interested in passing a new GI Bill and more focused on creating political advertisements for the upcoming campaign season. Any House or Senate Republican who opposes the "Big Bill" for reasons other than the GI education benefits can (and will) be accused of voting against the new GI Bill. And the Democrats have spent years developing "Veterans Groups" who are actually political wings of their party and are now standing by to aid and abet the effort through a very willing and supportive media. Democrats win, veterans lose (in a big way - there will be no chance of a Bill in a non-election year like 2009) and Republicans won't know what hit them.

Update: Good News/Bad News

Previous entries:

Previous: GI Bill for the 21st Century

Posted by Greyhawk at 12:50 PM | Comments (6)

May 07, 2008

Such a nice boy

A sad tale...

Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an "enemy combatant."
<...>
U.S. counterterrorism analysts argued in a review of al-Ajmi's activities that he should not be released or returned to Kuwait based on the following:

— That he deserted from the Kuwaiti army to participate in a jihad in Afghanistan;

— The Taliban supplied him with arms, including grenades;

— He admitted fighting with the Taliban, including engaging in two or three firefights;

— He was captured by coalition forces in the Tora Bora region, an area once thought to be a hideout of Usama bin Laden;

But his lawyers won the day...

Al-Ajmi denied all charges that he was an enemy combatant and a jihadist, and that documented statements were untrue.

He was repatriated to Kuwaiti authorities on Nov. 3, 2005.

And now...

Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.

That's an interesting way to put it.

It might have been one of these incidents

Three suicide bombers and a car bomb have struck the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, killing at least nine people and wounding 31 others, police said.

Or perhaps this one:

Iraqi soldiers foil suicide bomb attack in Mosul

MOSUL, Iraq, April 29 (Xinhua) -- Iraqi soldiers at a military base in Mosul, the capital of the northern province of Nineveh, foiled a suicide tanker bomb attack on their base, said the provincial police.

The incident occurred at about 7 a.m. (0400 GMT) when a suicide bomber tried to drive his booby-trapped tanker into the army base in the al-Tanak area in western Mosul, Brigadier Khalid Abdul-Sattar, spokesman of the provincial security operations office told Xinhua.

The soldiers at the entrance of the base ordered the tanker driver to stop before they opened fire with rocket propelled grenades and machinguns, causing a powerful explosion in the tanker which was heard on all over the city of Mosul, Sattar said.

Only one soldier was injured by the blast because the soldiers blew up the tanker before reaching the fortified entrance of the base, added the spokesman.

How, you might ask, could such a thing happen?

Answer here:

How did Shearman & Sterling get tapped for this historic assignment? Speaking at Seton Hall Law School in fall of 2006, Mr. Wilner recounted that he visited the facility at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, months before he met the Kuwaiti 12’s families. What was Mr. Wilner doing at Gitmo more than two years before Rasul established the legal basis for lawyers getting access to detainees inside the camp? One of his Gitmo legal colleagues has said that Mr. Wilner was brought into the case by an oil industry client.

It turns out that Shearman & Sterling, a 1,000-lawyer firm with offices in 19 cities all over the world, has substantial business dealings on six continents. Indeed, Shearman’s client care for Middle Eastern matters has established a new industry standard: The firm’s Abu Dhabi office states that it has pioneered the concept of “Shariah-compliant” financing. In Kuwait, the firm has represented the government on a wide variety of matters involving billions of dollars worth of assets. So the party underwriting the litigation on behalf of the Kuwaiti 12–from which all of the detainees have benefited–is one of Shearman & Sterling’s most lucrative OPEC accounts.

Shearman & Sterling did far more than just write legal briefs and shuttle down to Gitmo to conduct interviews about alleged torture for the BBC. In addition to its legal services, the firm registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) as well as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) to press the Kuwaiti detainees’ cause on Capitol Hill. Shearman reported $749,980 in lobbying fees under FARA for one six-month period in 2005 and another $200,000 under the LDA over a one-year period between 2005 and 2006. Those are the precise time periods when Congress was engaged in intense debates over the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, legislation which Shearman & Sterling and its Kuwaiti paymasters hoped would pave the way for shutting down Guantanamo permanently and setting their clients free.

Mr. Wilner, a media-savvy lawyer who immediately realized that the detainee cases posed a tremendous PR challenge in the wake of September 11, hired high-stakes media guru Richard Levick to change public perception about the Kuwaiti 12. Mr. Levick, a former attorney whose Washington, D.C.-based “crisis PR” firm has carved out a niche in litigation-related issues, has represented clients as varied as Rosie O’Donnell, Napster, and the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Levick’s firm is also registered under FARA as an agent of a foreign principal for the “Kuwaiti Detainees Committee,” reporting $774,000 in fees in a one year period. After the U.S. Supreme Court heard the first consolidated case, the PR campaign went into high gear, Mr. Levick wrote, to “turn the Guantanamo tide.”

In numerous published articles and interviews, Mr. Levick has laid out the essence of the entire Kuwaiti PR campaign. The strategy sought to accomplish two things: put a sympathetic “human face” on the detainees and convince the public that it had a stake in their plight. In other words, the militant Islamists who traveled to Afghanistan to become a part of al Qaeda’s jihad on America had to be reinvented as innocent charity workers swept up in the war after 9/11. The committed Islamist who admitted firing an AK-47 in a Taliban training camp became a “teacher on vacation” who went to Afghanistan in 2001 “to help refugees.” The member of an Islamist street gang who opened three al-Wafa offices with Suliman Abu Ghaith (Osama Bin Laden’s chief spokesman) to raise al Qaeda funds became a charity worker whose eight children were left destitute in his absence. All 12 Kuwaitis became the innocent victims of “bounty hunters.”

A Montreal-based marketing firm was hired to create the families’ full-service Web site which fed propaganda–unsourced, unrebutted and uninvestigated by the media–aimed at the media all over the world. Creating what Mr. Levick calls a “war of pictures,” the site is replete with images meant to appeal to Americans: smiling Kuwaiti families wearing T-shirts and baseball caps, cute children passing out yellow ribbons.

And al-Ajmi was one of the "Kuwait 12" - read the whole thing.

In other Gitmo news:

An Al-Jazeera cameraman released from the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay detention center last week described it Monday as the worst prison mankind has ever seen.

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese citizen, was whisked from his hospital bed in a convoy escorted by police cars with flashing lights and wailing sirens to an outdoor event in his neighborhood organized by his family. His speech was broadcast live on Sudanese television.

“After 2,340 days spent in the most heinous prison mankind has ever known, we are honored to be here. Thank you, and thank all those defended us and of our right in freedom,” he told the cheering crowd.

Meanwhile, in the New York Times last weekend, Nicholas Kristoff demonstrated why it isn't called the New York Timing:

When I started writing about Guantánamo several years ago, I thought the inmates might be lying and the Pentagon telling the truth. No doubt some inmates lie, and some surely are terrorists. But over time — and it’s painful to write this — I’ve found the inmates to be more credible than American officials.
<...>
In reality, it would take an exceptional enemy to damage America’s image and interests as much as President Bush and Mr. Cheney already have with Guantánamo.

Or maybe it's just you.

UPDATE: MUCH More from 9/11 families here.

And here:

A third Kuwaiti, identified as Bader Al-Harbi has reportedly carried out a suicide attack in Iraq according to knowledgeable sources.

And here

Released Guantanamo detainee Sami al-Haj faked weakness and the inability to walk off the US Air Force plane once it landed in Khartoum.

Posted by Greyhawk at 04:19 AM | Comments (8)

May 05, 2008

Tune in Today

Via SSGT Brandon H. Varn email:

Hi Everyone,
My mom Patti Patton Bader founder of Soldiers Angels is up for consideration for NBC's America's Favorite Military Mom on Monday (May 5th). You can help her, Soldiers Angels, and me, by voting for her at http://www.nbc.com/Americas_Favorite_Mom/ - You can only vote Monday May 5th from 9 AM to 9 PM Eastern ST but you can vote up to 10 times (on the 5th) for each valid email address you have. If she wins Soldiers Angels will get more exposure on a National T.V. show on May 11. This exposure helps us show our troops in a real way that they are strongly supported by us at home, and also helps to provide awareness and needed donations so that we can continue to meet the needs of our heroes.

Also, if you get a chance, my mom will be on NBC's The Today Show during the 9 A.M. hour today. As you all know Soldiers Angels is a wonderful organization of volunteers that does a lot of great support for all the men and women of the military, aids our troops wherever we raise the Stars and Stripes, helps wounded heroes here and abroad, and assists military families in times of need. Please help us by voting for my mom Monday and maybe passing on this email to a few of your friends. It's for a good cause and only takes a moment. Here's the link again. http://www.nbc.com/Americas_Favorite_Mom/
Thank you and God Bless everyone who helps our troops,
SSGT Brandon H. Varn

NZ Bear says

Patti Patton-Bader, founder of Soldiers’ Angels , is one of the fifteen semi-finalists in NBC’s “America’s Favorite Mom” contest. There are five categories, and she is nominated with two other mom's in the "military mom's" category. The winner receives a $250,000 cash prize, and Patti has said she’d like to use the money to build a ranch for soldiers and their families to vacation at with assistance from Angel families.

Patti will be featured the morning of Monday May 5th on NBC’s Today Show, and all day Monday (but ONLY Monday) folks will have the opportunity to vote at http://www.nbc.com/Americas_Favorite_Mom/ in her category. All the mom's are deserving, so whether you choose to vote for Patti or not, check it out!

Posted by Mrs Greyhawk at 04:30 AM

Words

I've been trying to ignore this topic...

Words matter, and in the global war on terror we are losing the battle of words, in a self-inflicted defeat. The consequences could not be more profound.

Recent government policy memoranda, circulating through the national counter-terrorism and diplomatic community, establishes a new "speech code" for the lexicon in the war on terror, as reported by the Associated Press and now available in the public domain .

...as it seemed mostly pointless to me.

Then while working another project I stumbled across this poignant reminder of why I was wrong.

More here, if you don't recognize the name. And here. And here...

Posted by Greyhawk at 03:49 AM | Comments (5)

May 04, 2008

Mike Yon's Book

Moment of Truth in Iraq is back in stock at Amazon. If that's kept you from buying a copy, wait no more.

Posted by Greyhawk at 03:44 PM

May 03, 2008

How Republicans "lost" the Military Vote

That headline isn't accurate yet. But it will be soon, and here's why.

*****

"And they wonder why 73 plus percent of military members are registered as Republicans" - that's the headline at Blackfive on the story of the new DNC anti-McCain attack ad.

I'd be surprised if that figure is accurate (and regardless of how they register or vote in any given election I believe the majority of military members would declare themselves independent). But I have no doubt that a majority (though perhaps slight) of military members who voted in the 2004 elections voted four more years for George Bush. That's certainly conventional wisdom, as it was four years previously when attempts to dismiss absentee ballots in Florida were attributed to the Gore campaign's concern that the overwhelming Republican vote from military members would tip the disputed results there to his opponent. Both issues are history - and not the focus here. But right or wrong, that conventional wisdom will re-appear in new and different ways during election coverage this fall as variations on the form of the headline I've chosen for this post. And the fact that the Republican candidate is a respected veteran will be noted in the first paragraph of each story.

But first, back to the ad. (And first, read this entry for additional background.) Obviously, from the viewpoint of the Democratic National Committee it's perfect - and these sorts of things are heavily market-tested before they are used. It conveys their message to voters about John McCain - he's George Bush - and his military 'victims'. It's also an outright lie and deception from start to finish, and the juxtaposition of a half-quote with video of an explosion near two uniformed GIs (bonus: They're black!) presents exactly the opposite of what McCain actually said.

Which means it's marvelously effective propaganda. And while that deceptive use might infuriate some military members, this ad is not directed at military members - it's for consumption by civilians. But it will play well for other military folks - the vast majority of whom, like their civilian counterparts, have never been that close to a boom and imagine it happens every hour to everyone in Iraq.

But seven years after 9/11 many have been deployed - if not into combat. And even those who've never left Kuwait or Qatar still experience the real cause of the weariness that births the longing for conflict's end - separation from those back home. It's a more widespread burden than combat. We're winning in combat, and soldiers aren't afraid to fight. So even if American soldiers heard (and believed) McCain's assurance that his 50-100 years is without combat some might not be able to summon the energy to cheer out loud. Pay no attention to the fact that Senators Clinton and Obama would - if elected - simply relocate them from Iraq to Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, or somewhere else nearby from which they could spring quickly from isolation into action...

That's war. At least an element thereof, and it's an element the political opposition gets to use against the current leadership. The willingness to do so (and to what degree to do so) is the stuff of 21st Century market research. With or without the DNC ad, American service members are well aware of the dangers of combat and the loneliness of separation. Some, upon seeing this ad, might say it's no wonder that most military members are Republicans. Others might feel the DNC "understands" them. And still others might simply be worn down one more notch by yet another of the relentless messages that a significant percentage of their fellow Americans want them out of Iraq, and they are therefore wasting their time. For the Democrats, it's a winner.

*****

Meanwhile, back in America, a Georgia congressman is trying to ban the sale of "porn" on military installations.

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

Actually, his new legal definition of porn would ban magazines like Maxim and Cosmopolitan and anything else that might feature women wearing "less than opaque" clothing. As he and his 16 Republican co-sponsors were swapping triumphant fanny-pats, a commenter here was saying:

It’s good to know that those 16 backers have taken care of all the other problems the military faces and are now taking care of this issue.

Nothing builds up my morale like some know-nothing busybody congressman checking up on conditions at military bases and being able to see the lack of adequate and affordable housing, reduction in base services like affordable childcare, or the various pawn shops, strip bars, and “E-Z credit know money down payday loan” places lining both sides of the entry to a military post, and can see it’s nudie mags in the PX that is the big threat facing “our boys and girls” in uniform.

Sure enough, within days

Ed Frawley is mad as hell — and thanks to a video he recently posted on YouTube, so are a lot of other people. What has the Menomonie man so hot under the collar are the “embarrassing and disgusting” — and downright unsafe — conditions he discovered in an aging barracks at Ft. Bragg, N.C.

On April 13, Frawley’s son, Sgt. Jeff Frawley, 22, returned stateside from a 15-month deployment in the mountains of Afghanistan. Along with the parents of other soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division’s Charlie Company, his father was on hand to greet him.

Following a brief initial greeting session when the troops landed at Pope Air Force base, the families were invited to meet with their soldiers back at the barracks at Ft. Bragg.

“All of the families got to the barracks about 10:30 that night on April 13,” Frawley said. “They put them in the day room. ... It was nasty. I felt so bad for these parents. You could see all of them looking around.”

It was at that point that Frawley toured the rest of the building, taking photos along the way. What he found was peeling lead paint, open drains leaking sewer gas, missing and molding ceiling tiles and rusting bathroom fixtures.

“The more I looked the madder I got,” he said...

A new barracks was under construction but not ready, but it's too late for excuses. These conditions are certainly not the fault of Republicans in any way shape or form, but if I were planning the next round of campaign videos for the DNC, I'd quickly make one showing Congressman Broun ~~wading into~~ ordering his assistant to swim through that sewage to check the stalls for copies of the Victoria's Secret catalog, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, or DVDs of "Eyes wide Shut." (Fair or not, that would make a highly effective campaign spot...) *****

But if you think those are issues - you aint seen nothin' yet. The debate over the new GI bill - just getting underway in congress - is likely to become a major issue, one in which Republicans are eagerly (and pointlessly, and needlessly) setting themselves up for complete destruction.

I urge you to read this entry (and the links therein) for more details. In a nutshell, Senator Webb (D-Va) has introduced legislation to replace the anemic current GI Bill with a new version that rivals the original post-WWII bill in benefits for the troops. How good is it? So good that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has expressed his concern that the troops might actually use it:

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

There's a great degree of absurdity here, as Gates' comments can also stand as an acknowledgement that the current bill isn't strong enough to attract a significant number of military members to give up combat for a life in academia.

Clearly an overhaul is years overdue - but election years are better than others for some legislation. In fact, Webb's bill (S 22) was introduced over a year ago, and has been going nowhere ever since - until now. (But "better late than never" is an applicable cliche here.) Regardless of motivation, the bill has been dusted off and is now a topic for debate in the Senate. (Along with related legislation in the House.) In an age when the percentage of Americans serving their country is ridiculously low, this effort seems to be a no-brainer - one would expect congressional delegations from both sides of the aisle to get on board and make it happen. And in fact, the bill has strong bi-partisan support.

But suddenly, a Republican counter-bill appears. A "senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified" declares it “...is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

And in all fairness, it too is an improvement over the current Montgomery GI Bill - but it falls short. But even if it was superior to Webb's offer, if you think that a Republican counter-bill has a chance to make it through a Democrat-controlled congress you're living in a fantasy world. Likewise in fairness, it should be noted that Democrats might attach Webb's bill to another that will be strongly opposed by their Republican counterparts and likely vetoed by the President - on other grounds. However, while that scenario would be a loss for Americans serving, as with the video that opened this post it will be a huge publicity boost for Democrats, who will be handed a golden opportunity to paint their opponents as anti-military throughout the upcoming campaign season – and (in this case) rightfully so.

The media set-up has already begun. Not content to stick with the simple facts (which in this case already heavily favor the Democrats) news stories are presenting the Republican bill as McCain's. While he is a co-sponsor, the bill is actually from Lindsey Graham. McCain may be convinced that the Webb bill's potential to damage military retention outweighs its benefits to individual servicemembers, and he's certainly not acting in complete disregard for the troops, but he's just as certainly going to leave himself wide open to accusations of just that. A long sit-down with Webb and other veteran members of congress might go a long way to dispelling that rumor - even if McCain remains committed to the hopeless Republican alternative bill. But McCain's public endorsement of Webb's bill (perhaps with conditions that it not be submitted with other legislation and instead pass on its own merits) could completely eliminate the threat.

*****

It's certainly far too early to declare a winner in the 2008 Presidential elections. But it's worth noting that in the 2004 elections an incumbent wartime president narrowly defeated a challenger (who tried to portray himself - rightly or wrongly - as a war hero) in part because of the perception (correct or incorrect) that his opponent had betrayed the troops (see "Winter Soldier"). The 2008 election could see a similar result.

You can bet that we'll be watching developments in this story very closely here.

*****

Next: Update: The New GI Bill

Posted by Greyhawk at 04:09 PM | Comments (14)

May 02, 2008

Influential

Ricardo Sanchez writes a profile of Moqtada al Sadr for Time Magazine's 100 most influential people list:

In April 2004, al-Sadr's militia attacked coalition forces and took control of most provincial capitals in southern Iraq. In response, President Bush officially declared al-Sadr the enemy and ordered the military to capture or kill him. "We can't allow one man to change the course of the country," stated Bush in a video teleconference. "He must be wiped out." However, within a week, the White House reversed direction and ordered coalition forces to walk away from the mission. Negative media coverage was endangering the planned July 1, 2004, transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, which was heavily tied to Bush's re-election campaign.
<...>
He will inevitably continue as a major political power broker on the Iraq scene. But the die was cast in April 2004.

I think this re-write of one sentence could really improve the story: Negative media coverage of the abu Ghraib story was endangering the planned July 1, 2004, transfer of sovereignty...

Posted by Greyhawk at 08:43 PM | Comments (2)

GI Bill for the 21st Century

You may or may not have noticed some of the slowly growing media coverage of the new GI Bill. If not, I suspect you will - this is the sort of story that tends to catch on.

I hope it doesn't - at least not for the reasons I suspect it will - but you'll have to read on to see why.

First: I've never been a fan of the current GI Bill. It's been badly in need of reform on several counts for a long time. Here's what I wrote from Iraq in October last year:

Give the GI Bill to all active duty troops along with Guard/reserve forces activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. By "give" I mean ELIMINATE THE "BUY IN" - stop forcing junior troops to decide between feeding their families and tucking some money away for college. And while we're at it, increase the benefit to equal what the troops returning from WWII received. If it could be done for the largest Army in American history, it certainly could be done for the smallest.

Who has that power? Only one group of people can do it. It's not the military. It's not the President.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the most unpopular institution in the history of the United States: your Congress. (Who are working on another pork-leaden defense spending bill even as we speak...)

(See also here.)

And now, lo and behold and glory hallelujah:

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2008 – The national commander of America's largest organization of combat veterans is demanding that Congress pass S. 22, the "Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act."

"A new GI Bill for the 21st century must be passed," said George Lisicki, who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., a veterans' service organization that includes more than 70,000 Afghanistan and Iraqi war veterans among its 1.7 million members.
<...>
S. 22 was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to mirror the original World War II educational benefit. It would repeal the $1,200 enrollment fee, match tuition at the highest in-state rate, and provide for books and fees, and a living stipend. For those veterans accepted to private institutions, S. 22 would also provide a dollar-for-dollar tuition match for those colleges and universities who choose to participate in the program.

Lisicki is hopeful that strong bipartisan support will finally help the new GI Bill for the 21st century become reality.

And those who already doled out the cash for their future GI Bill benefits would have that money refunded. To me the whole deal sounded too good to be true. But any doubts I had about the significance of the benefit were erased entirely when I read the best possible endorsement it could ever get:

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

Read into that comment a little bit and you'll realize that it's also an acknowledgement that the current Montgomery GI Bill isn't a threat - it ain't good enough to hurt retention, even in an army at war. However, Secretary Gates also draws attention to an undeniable shortfall in S.22 - benefits can't be transferred to dependents:

Transferability, Gates said, “is the highest priority set by the service chiefs and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the strong interest from the field and the fleet,” Gates said.

I concur. But not for these reasons:

Transferring benefits is good for the family but also good for the services by helping to keep people in the military while family members are using the benefits, Gates said.

So, enter a competing bill - from Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina:

Graham’s bill would raise fulltime MGIB benefits to $1500 a month, up from $1101, for all users. That would include veterans and retirees who left service long before the attacks of 9-11.

It also would offer new enticements – including eligibility to transfer benefits to spouse or children -- for current members who meet new MGIB-enhancement thresholds at six and 12 years of service. After six years, members could transfer half of any unused MGIB benefits to family members. After 12 years’ service, the monthly benefit would pop up to $2000 a month, and members could transfer 100 percent of any unused portion to spouses or children.

All very nice - and as a guy with over 20 years time in, I think I'd come out ahead compared to Webb's offer. BUUUUTTTTT...

Other attracted features of S 2938 include an extra $500 a year for books and a fresh chance to buy into the MGIB for roughly 5000 members still on active duty who first entered service when the only education benefit offered was the anemic Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).

...there's that "buy in" again. Put your life on the line, spend time in war zones far from home, and you're eligible to purchase educational benefits if you can afford them (AND LOTS OF LOW RANKING PROPLE CAN'T - please don't argue that it's a reasonable price). I wonder which bill most military members and veterans would prefer?

Anyhow, although I hate to lend credence to anonymous officials, this quote sounds legit:

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the McCain bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, “is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

Except that it's not the McCain bill - he is a co-sponsor, but it's Lindsey Graham's bill. But you'd be hard pressed to find that data point in most of the coverage. (More on that politicization of the issue shortly.)

First, for the record, I'm in full agreement with Paul Rieckhoff on the retention issue

Support for expanding GI education benefits in some fashion is widespread. Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a strong proponent of Webb's legislation, said concerns that the bill's expanded benefits will encourage service members to leave the military is a "very short-sighted argument."

Expanded benefits are "a recruiting tool, readiness tool, and a moral obligation," he says. "The overall net gain is going to outweigh any potential retention problems."

So let me introduce my dream-scenario GI Bill:

1. No "buy in"

2. Webb's benefits for short term service, growing to Graham's numbers for career service members.

3. Transferability per Graham's bill. ( I really can't find anyone's defense of the lack of this provision in Webb's bill.)

What I'd gladly welcome: Webb's bill (even though I think I personally benefit more from Graham's.)

And now let me tell you what I think is more likely "New GI Bill": NOTHING. ZIP. NADA, NO CHANGE.

And here's why:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats are discussing a proposal to add money and conditions to a war funding bill despite President Bush's specific objections.

The proposal would add a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq as a condition for the funding, several Democratic leadership aides said.

It would also add money for some of the Democrats' domestic priorities, including unemployment assistance, a new GI bill to fund education benefits for military veterans and a package of tax credits for renewable energy sources.

Democratic sources say the $178 billion measure would include $108 billion the president requested for military spending in 2008 and $70 billion to cover war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan through early 2009.

The little screaming cynic living in my head is telling me that the entire thing is a scam ro be crammed into a bill that has no chance in hell of surviving a Presidential veto for other reasons - then used as a political commercial in the upcoming campaign season to hammer anyone who "denied veterans" their just due.

But then again, the screaming little cynic isn't always right. Maybe for the first time in decades congress will do the right thing and send the best possible GI Bill as a stand alone measure to the White House.

You can bet I'll be watching developments closely.

*****

The text - and additional information - of Webb's bill (S 22 - originally introduced in January, 2007 and collecting dust ever since) is available here.

The text of Graham's bill (S 2938) isn't available yet - it's too new.

*****

Updates - see also: