Veterans for Dean
The Blog



_________________________________________

PLEASE DO NOT HIT THE EMAIL LINK FOR THIS BLOG. YOU WILL NOT GET AN ANSWER HERE! This Blog has now transitioned to "Voice of a Veteran" Please click here to continue reading this Vet's blog and please change your links. There is an email link at this new website.
<___________________________________________

Wednesday, November 26, 2003
 
...And Finally Today, A Note of Thanksgiving - and an Open Thread for You

This is an open thread for you, over the long weekend, to express your thanks to a relative who is serving in the military, our veterans, our "citizen soldiers": the Reserves and National Guard troops and anyone else connected to the military.

So for those of you who will be on your computers on this long Thanksgiving weekend, just hit the "Comment" link below to express your thanks.

I'll start it off by saying I am very thankful for those who serve (including my son, of whom I am very proud) and have served our country in our best-in-the-world military. For those of you separated from your families and friends at the holidays, many of us have been through that as well, and we salute you, and hope and pray for your safe return. Have a great Thanksgiving.

See you all back here on Monday.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:15 AM -
 
...And You Should Know This Before You Start Your Christmas Shopping

Only one big retailer that I know of is looking out for its employees who have been called to active duty - over and above the legal requirements of holding a position open for them - Sears. They don't endorse candidates and we haven't been paid off to support them, but you should think about supporting them with your shopping dollars in the next few weeks. A breath of fresh air from big business follows below. I had heard that they are leading the way in supporting their called-up employees. Here's their response to my inquiry:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for taking the time to let us know of your support for our actions regarding our associates who have been called into active duty.

As you may have read, Sears has extended its program of military pay differential to 24 months. This includes allowing Sears reservists who are full-time employees to continue participating in the company's life insurance, medical and dental programs, if they choose. The company will also hold a comparable position for these individuals for up to five years.

Sears has a heritage of commitment to families and home. This is a difficult time for military families, and we are proud to be able to take these actions to demonstrate support for our many co-workers who are serving our Nation.

Again, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate your interest in our efforts, and hope you will continue to make Sears your choice for quality and value. Sincerely,
The Employees of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

- posted by a Vet @ 9:00 AM -
 
...And In Case You Also Didn't Notice This Today

As noted on this blog, the date counter over to the right shows that we have an anniversary of sorts, but not one to celebrate:

It's been 800 days since Mr. Bush
said he'd catch Osama bin Laden
'Dead or Alive!'

- posted by a Vet @ 8:57 AM -
 
Garner Says US Made a Series of Errors in Iraq

For those of you committed Bush administration supporters who are so vehement that Gov Dean (and for that matter, all 9 Democrats) do nothing but criticize the events in Iraq, you should know that key administration people involved in the Iraq decisions, from the beginning to the aftermath, are now coming out in agreement.

This morning on BBC, Jay Garner, the first administrator in Iraq, appointed by Mr. Rumsfeld, listed a series of errors which have worked to blunt the military success of our troops. Last week, as noted on this blog, Richard Perle, an inside advisor to Mr. Bush, admitted the war was illegal. Here's what retired Gen Garner had to say today:

Lieutenant General Jay Garner, who was replaced after less than a month, says the US could have communicated better with the Iraqi people.

In an interview with the BBC, he added that more US soldiers should have been sent to Iraq.

And he says more should have been done to restore electricity supplies.

General Garner, who was retired from the military when he took control in Iraq, said the US should have moved more quickly to establish a government in Iraq.

He said: "If we did it over again, we probably would have put more dismounted infantrymen in Baghdad and maybe more troops there."

Poor communication

The general also said he would have shipped in huge generators to supply electricity.

He added: "On my part I would certainly (have) done a better job on having communications with the Iraqi people."

The consequences of that is that Iraqis now listen to Al-Jazeera, the Arab TV channel that the US accuses of colluding with insurgents to film attacks on coalition forces, he told the BBC.

But General Garner said these poor communication links with the Iraqis had not strengthened opposition to the coalition.

He blamed that on hardcore supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and international terrorists.

General Garner was replaced as the American's senior civil administrator in Iraq by Paul Bremer after initial reconstruction efforts did not go according to plan.

The change of personnel was also the result of rivalry in Washington between the Pentagon and the state department over who should be doing what in Iraq.

Once again, this is all about the failures of leadership from Mr. Bush himself, from his advisors and appointees, like Perle and Bremer, and even the vice president, Mr. Cheney, who blazed the path into Iraq based on wrong conclusions from available intelligence. Mr. Bush replaced Gen Garner with his own man, Paul Bremer, within a month. Bremer's quick decision to disband all of the Iraqi armed forces was done without thinking through all the consequences - and we and the people of Iraq are paying for them now.

We need not only the "strong leadership" that the Bush administration and their advertising team claim he has, we need strong and capable leadership to fight terrorism, able to understand right from wrong, able to choose advisors wisely, able to unite the country, and not divide it on the false issue of who are the real patriots in our country.

Vets and any others listening: it's time to get off the Bush train of failed leadership. It's near primary time. Time to switch tracks. And it's the right time to get on the Dean express to the White House.

- posted by a Vet @ 8:47 AM -
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
 
You Just Can't Let Him Out in Public

Thanks to Prometheusspeaks for this.

THE Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace.

Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-maintained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.

The rotors of the President's Marine Force One helicopter and two support Black Hawks damaged trees and shrubs that had survived since Queen Victoria's reign.

And Bush's army of clod-hopping security service men trampled more precious and exotic plants.

The historic fabric of the Palace was also damaged as high-tech links were fitted for the US leader and his entourage during his three-day stay with the Queen.

"The repairs will cost tens of thousands of pounds but the damage to historic and rare plants will be immense. They are still taking an inventory.

"The lawns are used for royal garden parties and are beautifully kept. But 30,000 visitors did not do as much damage as the Americans did in three days.

"Some of the roses, flowers and shrubs damaged are thought to be rare varieties named after members of the Royal Family and planted by the Queen Mother and Queen.

The Queen's insurers have told her she is covered for statues, garden furniture and plants she personally owns, but the bill for repairing damage to the lawns and the structure of the Palace will probably have to be picked up by the Government.

Memo to the Queen: We know you are upset that Mr. Bush's crowd trampled on your garden. We understand - he's already done a good job of trampling on our civil liberties.

- posted by a Vet @ 6:19 PM -
 
New Health Information Program Provided by VA

Vets for your info:

The Department of Veterans Affairs has created a new health portal. My HealtheVet is an informational service that offers "one-stop shopping" for VA benefits, health programs and many other services.

A commercial health education program offers information on medications and medical conditions.

As the site develops, veterans will be able to reorder prescriptions and view VA medical appointments. It includes a calendar and even a weather link. This is a complete site which answers many questions.

A Message to Our Veterans from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

The essence of the Department of Veterans Affairs mission is distilled in VA's motto, from President Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

"To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan."

Veterans are ordinary, yet extraordinary human beings; people who offered their youth, vitality and ambitions so that others would not have to sacrifice theirs. Of all the men and women who have taken up arms in our nations defense, well over half live among us today. Those 25 million veterans, from World War I doughboys to Bosnian peace keepers, to the men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan today -- all paid a price for the freedom and security that we enjoy. Their service paid the price exacted upon our nation in America's historic role as world leader and champion of democracy.

So I say to our nation's veterans: You are nothing less than the finest, greatest living testimony of the finest, greatest nation ever known. You paid the price for our freedom and prosperity. And for that, we offer the thanks of a free people.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony J. Principi

Note: MyHealtheVet is being added to the links on this blog


- posted by a Vet @ 2:30 PM -
Monday, November 24, 2003
 
The Patriot Act - Your First Amendment Rights Being Abused by the Dept of Justice and Local Police Forces

The new administration ad, inferring that anyone not supporting Mr. Bush shares responsibility for any terrorism that takes place in this country, is slanderous to half the population of the United States. The FBI has been gathering information on everyone they can who participates in any kind of protest against the government.

Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes. Civil rights advocates have accused federal and local authorities in Denver and Fresno, Calif., of spying on antiwar demonstrators or infiltrating planning meetings. And the New York Police Department this year questioned many of those arrested at demonstrations about their political affiliations, before halting the practice and expunging the data in the face of public criticism.

Mr. Bush is trying to paint anyone who criticizes him as doing the same thing as supporting terrorism. Thank you Mr. Bush for not only creating more hate daily of our country overseas, but within your own country as well. Never has our country been so polarized since Vietnam. As just broadcast on that beacon of "fair & balanced reporting" Fox news, conservative legal analyst Judge Napalitano even asked,"What the hell is the FBI doing?"

But this is not just about anti-war demonstrations. Note in the NY Times article that, although they don't intend on getting information and pictures of innocent people, the FBI is also monitoring internet websites who raise money for any kind of dissent. Does this include anything on line from Gov Dean and the other eight Democrat candidates?

Here is where the president's ad will backfire. The administration doesn't understand that most Democrats are, like most Republicans, in favor of fighting the war on terrorism. How it's done is the question - the big question. The war in Iraq was not the solution, but now we need to finish it honorably, effectively, and soon. If Mr. Bush continues to infer that half the country are traitors, he will not win re-election.

We all want the FBI to protect us from further attacks, but not to willfully neglect and step on our freedoms in so doing. We are not confident that the Attorney General understands this. The "ends justify the means" is not the strategy to protect our civil liberties that veterans have fought for and protected.

It's interesting isn't it that those who claim they are the real patriots are intent on taking away the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of everyone who doesn't agree with them. Those are in the Bill of Rights. Let's make sure they stay there.

Yes it will take some tough work. We can pursue the terrorists and protect civil liberties at the same time, but apparently this administration does not know how to (or care to) do so.

- posted by a Vet @ 11:33 AM -
Friday, November 21, 2003
 
Major Split Hits Bush Advisory Team - Perle Says War was Illegal!

Richard Perle, a key insider advisor to Mr. Bush, broke with his boss and the administration, and admitted the war in Iraq was illegal. You are going to have trouble finding this in the U.S. media, however. Read on:

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defense permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defense policy board, which advises the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organized by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British government and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defense, including pre-emptive self-defense. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.
Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete accounting of its weapons programs.


- posted by a Vet @ 8:39 AM -
Thursday, November 20, 2003
 
What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

President Bush contradicts himself within 7 days and confounds the Pentagon. Less than a week after declaring he would lower troop strength in Iraq from 130,000 down to around 80-90,000 early next year, Mr Bush changed his mind, but forgot to tell anyone.


President George Bush blindsided the Pentagon in London Thursday, saying if more troops were needed in Iraq, they would be sent.

That contradicted earlier Pentagon statements claiming the goal was to reduce troop strength, and reportedly startled both National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell at the news conference.

"We could have less troops in Iraq. We could have the same number of troops in Iraq. We could have more troops in Iraq. Whatever is necessary to secure Iraq," Bush said.

He said there are now 130,000 Iraqis trained to work in the army, security, intelligence and border protection, and ultimately they would take full control of their country.

Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke to reporters in the early afternoon, focusing largely on the bomb attacks in Istanbul earlier in the day.

Blair described the attack as "a struggle between fanaticism and extremism on the one hand and people who believe in freedom and in tolerance on the other."
- posted by a Vet @ 9:27 PM -
 
How The Administration Made the "Worst Mistake" In Post-War Iraq

Once again, look at the same names of who made the decisions - this time after "hostilities ceased": Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice, now with Bremer added to the mix. We're going to keep hammering this theme on this blog until next November - Failure of Leadership - and why we need Gov Dean in the White House in 2004. Leadership: It's a theme everyone who has been in the military has been trained in to some degree. Gen Zinni hit the nail on the head, but you don't have to be a retired 4-star general to understand that this commander-in-chief is not qualified for a second term.

Seven months after the fall of Baghdad, a single Iraqi army battalion exists to reinforce overstretched U.S.-led occupation troops. As casualties climb and large foreign armies remain on the sidelines, U.S. authorities are racing to recruit a credible Iraqi force to bolster the authority of a future Baghdad government.

Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security, repair roads and prepare for unforeseen postwar tasks. But that project was stopped abruptly in late May by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who ordered the demobilization of Iraq's entire army, including largely apolitical conscripts.

Bremer reversed himself a month later, but by then the occupation had lost not merely time and momentum but also credibility among former soldiers and their families, an important segment of Iraq's population.

Now, the Americans are trying to recover -- including rehiring some of the same soldiers they demobilized -- at what one top Defense Department official called "warp speed." And while the administration's handling of the Iraqi army has been widely viewed as a fundamental decision of the occupation, a number of U.S. officials and analysts are saying it was fundamentally wrong.

"This was a mistake, to dissolve the army and the police," said Ayad Alawi, head of the security committee of the Iraqi Governing Council. "We absolutely not only lost time. The vacuum allowed our enemies to regroup and to infiltrate the country."

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a vocal opponent of the war, calls the move the Bush administration's "worst mistake" in postwar Iraq.

Supporters of the decision counter that the army posed a potential threat to a fledgling Iraqi governing authority and U.S. forces -- and that it was so second-rate and so infiltrated with Baath Party figures that it could not be salvaged.

"The Iraqi army was a pretty sick organization in a lot of respects," said Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, who played a role in the demobilization decision. "There was quite a bit of cruelty -- abuse by the senior officers of the junior people -- and there was quite a bit of corruption."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the army effectively disbanded itself in the face of the U.S.-led invasion. "They just disbanded and went home," he told NBC television recently. "There were conscripts, and they weren't paid very well, and they just left."

(But) ...a former intelligence officer who recently returned from Iraq said more could have been done.

"How about announcing that we wanted them to reassemble? They could go out on the border. They could do static security. They could help against drive-by shootings," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "You've got one battalion after seven months of occupation. You could have several divisions by now."

The question of what to do with the Iraqi army arose before the war. In January, two months before the battle in Iraq began, Bush assigned planning for the war and its aftermath to the Pentagon. Rumsfeld recruited Jay M. Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general, to pull together competing administration plans and to govern Baghdad after the presumed overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Garner and his top aides, including retired Gens. Jared Bates and Ron Adams, proposed paying 300,000 to 400,000 members of the Iraqi regular army at war's end. Also, Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to advancing U.S. forces would be formed into work units. Private contractors were recruited to help make that happen.

Military planners inside the government assumed, based on prewar intelligence, that some Iraqi units would switch sides during the war, while others would remain in their garrisons awaiting instructions from the U.S. postwar leadership. U.S. aircraft had been dropping leaflets for weeks calling on Iraqi forces to prepare for a brighter future by laying down their arms.

Looking ahead, members of the State Department's Future of Iraq working group on defense had developed a similar plan, concluding that former soldiers could provide valuable intelligence while performing reconnaissance and security missions.

Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, offered a practical solution to Bush administration war planners. Arguing that the question did not demand an all-or-nothing approach, he favored purging the army of its most disreputable leaders and distilling the remaining forces into usable units. He also said soldiers should be paid, to minimize the chances that they would fight the occupation forces.

Garner consulted with Rumsfeld several times on the issue and briefed national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, a knowledgeable official said. He won approval for his plans at a Feb. 28 White House meeting with Bush and principal national security aides.

On March 11, the Pentagon announced its intention to pay several hundred thousand members of the regular Iraqi army. The elite and politicized Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, loyal to Hussein, would not be included.

The designs were in place as Garner arrived in Baghdad on April 21, a dozen days after Hussein's government fell, but even supporters concede pieces were missing. Details did not extend much beyond paying soldiers to keep out of trouble, several officials said. Paying them was "step one of something that was probably not very well fleshed out," said Bates, Garner's chief of staff.

"The first idea was paying them just to get them to stand by, with more to follow. Just to keep everything calm in the first days and weeks of the occupation. It was not 'Okay, we're going to organize 10 or 15 battalions,' " Bates recalled. "The decision on standing up the new Iraqi army had not been made."

As Garner was developing the policy amid the unexpected lawlessness in Baghdad, the White House replaced him with Bremer, a terrorism specialist with high-level State Department experience. He arrived May 12 with a mandate from Bush to take firm control of the U.S. occupation.

By that time, the prewar intelligence had proved inaccurate. No Iraqi units changed sides, and the number of surrendering forces was small. Iraqis had sacked Army garrisons, and entire divisions had melted away.

Bremer soon declared in internal meetings that no Iraqi units would be reconstituted and that soldiers would not be paid. On May 23, he issued a formal order that dismissed the army and canceled pensions. The order covered many categories of Iraqis, among them war widows and disabled veterans who were senior party members, defined as any officers at the rank of colonel or above.

U.S. officials in Baghdad, including Garner and Bates, were startled.

"It came with formidable force and decisiveness, as the president's policy. Nobody was supposed to challenge it and that was that," said one U.S. official in Baghdad at the time. Another said: "There was never a discussion that I was involved in where we would disband the military. It caught me completely by surprise."

The second official, recalling violent crime in the Iraqi capital, said Iraqi commanders had offered to gather soldiers, who would be paid for their work. The Americans could easily have pulled together "a couple of thousand military police in the Baghdad region," he said. "Many of the soldiers had taken their weapons home. Some had armored vehicles."

The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

"This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed," Slocombe said. "The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this."

Slocombe recalled discussing the issue with Wolfowitz on May 8 and with Feith several times, including on May 22, the night before Bremer issued the formal order. Trying to put the army back together at that point, he said, "would've been a practical disaster."

Beyond the practical difficulties of outfitting destroyed military bases, Slocombe said, an announcement that Hussein's Sunni Muslim-dominated army would retain considerable power would have produced "huge problems immediately" among the country's Shiite majority. Some at the Pentagon feared that the army could become an organized opposition to the U.S. military.

Senior U.S. military officers in the Persian Gulf region said they had advised Slocombe that the dissolution of the army -- recognized as an institution more loyal to Iraq than to Hussein -- would harm U.S. strategy. Demobilization was "a very basic mistake," said W. Patrick Lang, a retired chief analyst for Middle Eastern affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"In fact, most of the Iraqi army officers were nationalists, and they don't want to see the country break up," Lang said. He said carefully screened Iraqi units under U.S. control "would do much better against this enemy than we can."

Beyond the operational questions, opponents were disturbed that Garner's plans to pay soldiers to win their support had been abandoned. One former U.S. official in Baghdad put it this way: "Magnanimity in victory is an American trait. I'm surprised we blew it off this time."

An estimated 2,000 Iraqi soldiers protested the policy outside the U.S. compound in Baghdad on June 18, some of them hurling rocks, others carrying signs that said "Please Keep Your Promises." U.S. military police fired on the crowd, killing two.

On June 25, five weeks after Bremer's order, U.S. authorities reversed course again. Bremer ordered payments to about 370,000 conscripts and more than 250,000 officers, said a Pentagon official, who put the bill at $250 million for one year. The U.S. administration hopes to phase out the payments by mid-2004.

Hurrying to put together security forces -- including army, police and civil defense units -- the U.S. occupation has been recruiting former Iraqi soldiers. Slocombe said 60 percent of the enlisted soldiers in the new Iraqi army served in the old Iraqi army and all but two officers have prior service.

One battalion, with slightly fewer than 700 soldiers, is ready for duty. A second battalion is being trained. The administration hopes to put 35,000 Iraqis in army uniform, on a speeded-up timetable, as well as tens of thousands of police officers and civil defense paramilitaries.

"In terms of the actual reality," Wolfowitz said, "the thing is to get these guys hired back into an organization that we can actually use. That's what we're trying to do at warp speed -- but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."


- posted by a Vet @ 9:24 AM -
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
 
How to Lose Friends and Encourage Enemies by George Bush.

Statements by the President sent so many mixed messages this morning in London that one has to wonder whether the speech writers are using random idea generators. If Mr. Bush hoped to gain agreement for his ideas in Europe, he showed strange ways of doing so.

How to Insult the International Community 101:

President Bush chided his critics in Europe Wednesday and said the United Nations risked extinction unless it showed the sort of Anglo-American backbone that toppled Saddam Hussein.

"Like 11 presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to lead.

America and Great Britain have done and will do all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations."

The president also said he believed in the United Nations, which he bypassed to launch war, but that its viability depended on a willingness to keep its word and act.


Let's understand the progression of thought here regarding the UN over the last year from you, Mr. Bush: first blow them off, next after things are going badly, go back to the UN and ask for help, then today call them spineless, and finally say that like 11 presidents before you, you fully support the UN. Yes, Mr Bush, that ought to get their full fledged support now, but don't stay by the phone and wait for the calls.

He also told powers in continental Europe they had a responsibility to help ensure global security, despite their opposition to the U.S.-British war and the occupation of Iraq.

"Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way," Bush said.

"Beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal and freedom and security still need defenders."

He singled out France, which led international opposition to the Iraq war, for criticism. He said Paris had ridiculed former president Woodrow Wilson's post-World War One vision of global security, which had helped inspire the failed League of Nations.

"Sounds familiar," he mocked.

Right, consensus just doesn't work, Mr. Bush, because you didn't, in the end, care if you got it. And publicly humiliating France again is sure to get them to sign on to your plans quickly. France and Germany continue to be blamed by you Mr. Bush for their opposing a war you started based on your inability to weed out right from wrong advice from your vice president, cabinet, and personal advisors.

"The democratic progress seen in the Middle East was not imposed from outside, and foreign states could not force those nations to continue it," said Mr Bush.

Whoops, the random Bush idea generator got loose again. No one has any idea what you are talking about, Mr Bush.

"Freedom, by definition, must be chosen and defended by those who choose it," he said. "Our part as free nations is to ally ourselves with reform wherever it occurs."

Doesn't quite mesh with the reality of your Bush doctrine: namely, use pre-emptive force and regime change to force your version of Democracy on the Middle East.

"Americans have on occasion been called moralists who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has been inspired by examples on this island; by the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the trade in slaves."

Almost no one bought your self-comparison of the Allies going after Hitler, Mr. Bush. You are no modern day FDR or Churchill. Now you want us to believe your actions paralleled the stopping of slavery by Wilberforce? We are glad Saddam is gone (if he is), but you are no Wilberforce either. What will the next ridiculous comparison be: defeating Darth Vader and the Death Star?

"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties, and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins."

Yes, but you did so without enough troops, with the stubborn pursuit of WMDs while casualties mounted elsewhere, by not outfitting the troops fully to do the job - and by forgetting veterans back home. Iron Hammer takes to the offensive finally. But where have you been for six months, Mr. Bush?

We will not forget these actions next November, no matter how rosy things look then for you.

- posted by a Vet @ 12:28 PM -
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
 
Gov. Dean's Brother's Remains Found in Laos

For those of you who have not yet read Gov. Dean's statement about the locating of his brother Charlie's remains in Laos, please go to today's Blogforamerica and look for "Statement on Charlie Dean."
- posted by a Vet @ 6:56 PM -
 
Former Air Force Chief Backs Dean Candidacy

Thanks to Jack in NC for highlighting this important news. Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak of Lake Oswego, OR helps bolster Gov Dean's military credentials. More of this kind of support will be on the way.

Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak former Air Force chief of staff who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, has left the Republican fold and is backing Democrat Howard Dean in the 2004 race for president.

McPeak...joins a small but growing list of top military veterans who have parted ways with the president at least partly because of the war in Iraq. McPeak's decision could be an important boost for Dean because critics have accused the former Vermont governor of lacking the experience and knowledge needed to be the nation's commander-in-chief.

On Monday, Dean also picked up the endorsement of U.S. Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., during an event sponsored by the Asian American Action Fund, a Democratic political action committee.

McPeak, who headed the Air Force during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, criticized the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq before the invasion in March. He also said he has become disenchanted with the president's economic policies.

"I don't think the younger Bush has put a foot right since he entered the White House," said McPeak, who changed his registration from Republican to independent in April.

When it comes to Iraq, "we couldn't have sat around a kitchen table and designed a policy that was stupider," McPeak said. He argued that there was no evidence of a connection between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, "absolutely zero evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and the planning of the formation of the coalition (to support the war in Iraq) was very clumsily done."

Tracey Schmitt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokeswoman, said campaign officials would have no comment on McPeak's endorsement of Dean. But she said, "We do enjoy the support of a dynamic and active group of veterans."

Dick Klass, a retired Air Force colonel from Virginia who is working with Dean's campaign to attract former military officers, said endorsements from McPeak and other veterans could play an important role in the race.

"This is basically an exercise to let people know that Dean isn't a wild, lefty, antimilitary" person, said Klass, adding that he wouldn't be surprised to face such attacks from Republicans if Dean becomes the Democratic nominee.

Klass also said the endorsement might help in the primary, since retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the former military commander of NATO, has become one of the nine candidates in the Democratic race.

Klass, who also helped find former top military officers to support Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential race, arranged for McPeak to spend two days with Dean last month while he campaigned in Seattle and Boise.

McPeak said he spent several hours talking with Dean on his campaign airplane and in vans traveling to events. Although Dean did not have a "deep understanding" of national security issues, McPeak said, "his intuition is right, (and) his gut instincts are right."

In addition to McPeak, Dean has been endorsed by retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who once headed Central Command, which is in charge of all military operations in the Mideast. Klass said that retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, who headed the CIA under President Carter, also supports Dean and that several other retired military officers are informal advisers and might endorse him.

- posted by a Vet @ 9:27 AM -
Monday, November 17, 2003
 
Great Britain's Security Said to be More Than Enough. Don't Worry...

Security is exceptionally tight in London with the President's visit. Secret Service sharpshooters have been ordered to shoot suspected terrorists on sight.

And then there's the 61-year old grandmother who somehow managed to escape the clutches of the largest show of protection for a foreign leader in memory. We hope she isn't taken to Guantanamo Bay.
- posted by a Vet @ 6:01 PM -
 
How Dick Cheney Helped Lead the Way to War

There is a surprising lack of response to the revelations that Vice President Dick Cheney had a large influence on President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

So, in case you didn't lock on to the impacts of Cheney's influence, read these statements from Newsweek one at a time:

Of all the president's advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most dire view of the terrorist threat.

But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity.

Beginning in the late summer of 2002, he persistently warned that Saddam was stocking up on chemical and biological weapons, and last March, on the eve of the invasion, he declared that we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. (Cheney later said that he meant "program", not "weapons."

He also said, a bit optimistically, I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. After seven months, investigators are still looking for that arsenal of WMD.

The CIA and FBI, as well as a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, have dismissed this conspiracy theory. Still, as recently as Sept. 14, Cheney continued to leave the door open to Iraqi complicity. .. A few days later, a somewhat sheepish President Bush publicly corrected the vice president. There was no evidence, Bush admitted, to suggest that the Iraqis were behind 9/11.

A Cheney aide took strong exception to the notion that the vice president was at the receiving end of some kind of private pipeline for half-baked or fraudulent intelligence, or that he was somehow carrying water for the neocons or anyone else's self-serving agendas. Nonetheless, it appears that Cheney has been susceptible to cherry-picking, embracing those snippets of intelligence that support his dark prognosis while discarding others that don't.

He is widely regarded in the intelligence community as an outlier, as a man who always goes for the worst-case scenario and sometimes overlooks less alarming or at least ambiguous signs.

Top intelligence officials reject the suggestion that Cheney has somehow bullied lower-level CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency analysts into telling him what he wants to hear. But they do describe the Office of the Vice President, with its large and assertive staff, as a kind of free-floating power base that at times brushes aside the normal policymaking machinery under national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

On the road to war, Cheney in effect created a parallel government that became the real power center.

If nothing else, his apparently exaggerated alarms over Iraq, WMD and the terror connection may make Americans slow to respond the next time he sees a wolf at the door.

For the conspiracy theorists out there who think that finally we know the reason why we kept chasing WMDs etc., there's yet another, equal and opposite, conspiracy theory that holds that the revelations about Cheney are a little too convenient.

Why? Here's what they say: What are they going to do to Cheney? They are not going to impeach him - they can't even find him most of the time. Second, there is a startling lack of mention of people like Rove, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld whom we know from other sources pushed just as hard for war. Third, it takes the focus off of Mr. Bush because people don't really pay much attention to the Vice President - therefore, the story will blow over quickly (which it has, apparently).

Conspiracy theories aside, on Iraq, Mr. Bush was and is the decision maker. In the end, leadership is all about making the right decisions, often having to chose from different inputs from your advisors. Mr. Bush's failures in leadership are only heightened by the revelations about Cheney.

- posted by a Vet @ 4:06 PM -
 
We're Going After the Real Terrorists...

And this policy is brought to you by the only man in history to lose a Senate race to a deceased opponent - and be rewarded with the Attorney General position. Or as OJ has often said, just give me a chance to find the real killers...

WASHINGTON - The FBI has launched a new background-check system that notifies counterterrorism agents when suspects on its terrorist watch list attempt to purchase guns - but regulations prohibit them from getting details if the transaction actually occurs, according to federal officials familiar with the system.

If authorities block the purchase, however, the FBI is permitted to launch an investigation of the person who attempted to buy the weapon.

The result, according to the officials, is an awkward situation in which terrorism suspects who do not complete gun purchases may be located, while those toting lawfully purchased weapons may not be.

More than a dozen suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have attempted to buy guns since the system was implemented last spring, officials said. Authorities have declined to say how many succeeded.

The rules are the result of Attorney General John Ashcroft's interpretation of the Brady gun-control law, according to Justice Department officials, who said they are simply abiding by the federal firearms background-check system the law established.

The law bars authorities from sharing information with investigators about legal gun buyers and does not forbid terrorism suspects from purchasing firearms, officials said.

"Being a suspected member of a terrorist organization doesn't disqualify a person from owning a gun any more than being under investigation for a nonterrorism felony would," a Justice Department official said in a written statement.

Gun-control advocates said the rules endanger Americans by giving suspected terrorists an opportunity to evade scrutiny while obtaining weapons. The situation also has frustrated many law-enforcement officials who are eager to monitor the whereabouts and activities of suspected terrorist operatives and their associates.

"This policy is mind-boggling," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who has frequently clashed with Ashcroft on gun issues. "We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, the Justice Department's policy is to refuse to reveal his location to law-enforcement officials."

A Congressional Research Service report released earlier this year found that U.S. gun laws could be easily exploited by terrorists, who can get firearms and explosives by taking advantage of delays and loopholes in the system.

The FBI frequently does not know the whereabouts of people on the terrorist watch list, which means that learning where a firearm was purchased and what address the purchaser provided could be extremely helpful to counterterrorism investigators, several law-enforcement officials said.

"It's obviously frustrating for law enforcement in that kind of situation," one official said. "But we're just following the rules set by DOJ. ... We can't get in the middle of it."

- posted by a Vet @ 3:06 PM -
 
Welcome Halliburton Investors (Cont. - see Thursday Nov 6 blog below)

As Paul Bremer heads back to Iraq to implement the revised Bush guidance on "Iraqification", it would do well to remember that even if we are able to begin to transfer military & political control "by next June", this administration has done nothing to curb the illegal actions of corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel which may well enslave Iraq long after our troops are gone.

This administration only begins to change what it's doing in Iraq in reaction to the question, "Will this prevent Mr. Bush from getting re-elected?" - namely when the heat begins to really be turned on in the kitchen.

Recent examples: (1) Mounting casualties result in "Iron Hammer", to make us think that now things are under control in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle; (2) The unfolding political tar pit of Iraq's new government result in the recalling of Bremer to Washington last week which in turn result in the near panic response of: No, we don't need to wait until Iraq has a new constitution, let's turn things over to them as fast as we can; (3) Too many senior decision makers result in no clear direction, which result in Mr. Bush appointing Condi Rice to coordinate actions in Iraq (by the way, has anybody seen ANYTHING happen as a result of this "reorganization"?).

Therefore, if heat and light continue to be applied to the corporate robber barons like Halliburton, maybe Mr. Bush will realize that the illegal, barely disguised conflict-of-interest actions by the administration, in concert with these companies, might also affect his re-election. But, don't hold your breath. Read on.

If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, and by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.

US occupation chief Paul Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war.

The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) (Bremer) has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq.

Order 39 violated the Hague Regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary (see definition below) of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" ... as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing." Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos. And yet that is just what Bremer is doing: What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?

In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US Army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [nonmilitary] property." This is pretty straightforward: Bombing something does not give you the right to sell it. There is every indication that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of its privatization scheme. In a leaked memo written on March 26, British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."

So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq's reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This badly misses the scope of the violation: Even if the selloff of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America's to sell.

The Security Council's recognition of the United States and Britain's occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907."

According to a growing number of international legal experts, this means that if the next Iraqi government decides it doesn't want to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel or Halliburton, it will have powerful legal grounds to renationalize assets that were privatized under CPA edicts. The CPA has no authority or ability to sign those [privatization] contracts" and that a sovereign Iraqi government would have quite a serious argument for renationalization without paying compensation.

The only way out for the Administration is to make sure that Iraq's next government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: The contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq permanent.

The next Iraqi government (needs to) be free from the shackles of these reforms. It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place.


- posted by a Vet @ 10:41 AM -
Saturday, November 15, 2003
 
Anti-Iraq War Veterans Yanked from Parade

It's getting a little scary out there folks. The John Ashcroft syndrome infects the Tallahassee police...

J. Taylor Rushing
Florida Times Union

Anti-Iraq War Veterans Pulled from Parade

Tallahassee, Florida - A group of 30 military veterans critical of the war in Iraq hoped to use Tuesday's Veterans Day parade to call attention to the increasingly deadly conflict but instead found themselves fighting for something much more fundamental.

Members of Veterans For Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War were yanked off a downtown Tallahassee street, directly in front of the Old Capitol, while marching in the holiday parade they had legitimately registered in.

As organizers allowed the parade to roll on ...the anti-war veterans were ordered onto sidewalks where they passed out leaflets and displayed a banner reading, "Honor the Warrior, Not the War."

"There's a war going on that's based on lies, just like Vietnam," said veteran Tom Baxter, an Army equipment maintenance officer in Vietnam for 16 months in 1967-69. "They were lying then, and they're lying now."

Parade chairman Ken Conroy, a Korean War veteran, said he ejected the anti-war veterans because they were offensive and because Tallahassee police also wanted them removed. He offered to refund their $10 registration fee and said he was not suppressing the group's free speech rights.

"They can have their free speech, just not in the parade," Conroy said. "They belong on the sidewalk."

The six-block parade circling downtown Tallahassee was sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 3308.

Tallahassee police Sgt. David Folsom denied police played any role in the situation and said Tuesday was the first time he could recall anyone being excluded from the parade.
- posted by a Vet @ 4:00 PM -
Friday, November 14, 2003
 
Iowa Veterans - A Wake-up Call

Darrell in Iowa pointed out the following article in the Des Moines Register from Veteran's Day:

More Veterans Seek County Aid
Living costs, job losses, slow U.S. benefits and age issues prompt the need for assistance.
By JULI PROBASCO-SOWERS
Register Staff Writer
11/11/2003

A growing number of Iowa's veterans are asking counties for emergency assistance with rent, utilities or other bills.

A steady stream of former servicemen and women walk into veterans' representative David DeBolt's office at the Commission of Veterans Affairs in Polk County, which has Iowa's largest veteran population.

"We deal with 25 to 30 veterans every day," DeBolt said.

State law requires counties to care for veterans in need, though no state or federal money is available for the program. Supervisors set their own eligibility guidelines.

Iowa had 281,265 veterans in September 2002, according to the latest statistics statewide. The Des Moines Register surveyed four counties that are home to 20 percent of Iowa's veteran population.
Officials in Polk, Dubuque, Dallas and Black Hawk counties said the greater need for assistance stems from several issues: growing costs of daily living, loss of jobs, the length of time to attain federal military benefits and more aging veterans on fixed incomes.

The aid helps veterans such as Adel resident Terry Duran, who served in the Army for six years in the 1970s. She is back on her feet after an illness last year, working at McDonald's in Waukee and the Adel post office.

"The county helped with $250 for rent three or four times. They helped pay on my $144 electric bill," said Duran, 51.

She said she believes she would have been on the street if a friend hadn't guided her toward the assistance.

Charlie Brimeyer, director of Dubuque County's veterans commission, said requests for aid rose 20 percent at his office from July to September compared with a year ago. In Black Hawk County, the number of veteran clients increased 6 percent, from 1,768 in 2001 to 1,887 in 2002. Gary Peter- sen, director of Dallas County's veterans commission, saw double the usual number of clients in June and July, many because they lost jobs.

"We have the working poor, people who can't make it because their paychecks don't go that far. Our role is to stop the bleeding, and look for something more consistent. We are only temporary assistance," Brimeyer said.

Polk County's DeBolt said many veterans are asking for help for the first time.

"In the first week of October, I had 25 veterans who had never asked for assistance before," he said. "The worst thing we do is turn away people we want to help. There are probably two, three, sometimes four people a day we can't help because they are not eligible."

Some counties look at a person's entire budget for meeting basic needs to determine eligibility. Some counties serve only conflict-era veterans while others allow peacetime veterans as well. Many veterans affairs directors say they worry about the number of military men and women who will return from Iraq. National Guard members serving there will be eligible for help, if needed.

Brimeyer said he believes state officials must consider how to meet that demand. "That scares me. We don't know what's going to happen when they get home," he said.

Federal assistance varies for each veteran, said Michael Pard, veterans' representative at the Veterans Administration in Des Moines. The VA does not offer short-term emergency assistance. The process for getting federal benefits can be complicated, sometimes taking more than two years for a disability determination, for example.

"We definitely will see these counties having an increase in requests as people come home," Pard said.

He said federal money allotted to the VA is not keeping up with the needs of a growing number of veterans eligible for benefits.

Aging veterans from previous wars also concern county leaders.

"I had an 84-year-old veteran of World War II in my office the other day, and there wasn't a thing I could do for him because he gets Social Security and he makes too much to qualify," Dallas County's Petersen said.

He is asking supervisors for more money to help with rent and mortgages, and a base increase in income guidelines to make more veterans eligible for county aid.

Polk County officials may ask for as much as $47,000 more to help with utility payments. DeBolt said the increase is needed to meet expected rises in natural gas and electricity costs.
Counties often step in with assistance while working on longer-term solutions.

Mike Kenoyer, 46, a Marine veteran in Dallas County, is on military disability for non-service-related medical problems. He's working to receive military disability for a service-related injury, a process that could take four or five years.

He, his wife and two teenage sons live on about $1,200 per month. For every dollar his wife makes, his disability goes down by the same amount. If he wins service-related injury disability, the amount would nearly double and would stay the same each month. In the meantime, Dallas County helps periodically with rent, food and utilities.

However, securing more county money for veterans could be difficult. Black Hawk County supervisors cut the veterans commission budget by $52,000 in 2002, commission director Bennie Spain said. His office had to stop helping veterans pay doctor bills, buy hearing aids and build wheelchair ramps, although help with rent, food and utilities has continued.

"That's a heck of a welcome home for veterans," Spain said. A country that asks its veterans to put their lives on the line should take care of them when they come home, he said.

Black Hawk County Supervisor Leon Mosley said he'll work to restore the money. "There are a lot of veterans out there suffering. I know homeless vets and vets who are $10 away from having nothing at all. Veterans need to be a priority in spending," Mosley said.

Veteran Laura Hale, 34, has turned to Dallas County for assistance with utilities and mortgage payments as she attends college and waits for a higher military disability rating for a condition related to her military work.

She said she wouldn't trade her military years for anything.

"There's a flag hanging out front for a reason. I'm proud of my service," Hale said. "I've also gotten great medical care. But federal officials need to allot more money to help veterans. There needs to be more doctors, more professionals and more caseworkers."

These problems for veterans are not limited to Iowa - they are everywhere. The Iowa caucus leads the primary season off in January. Iowa Vets: lead the way for new leadership in the Democratic Party and the White House. We need someone who cares about fixing things that should be fixed for veterans. Dick Gephardt thinks he has things locked up in Iowa. You can help Gov Dean give him a big surprise.
- posted by a Vet @ 12:00 AM -
Thursday, November 13, 2003
 
Mr. Bush’s Really Bad Idea

The following Newsweek article damns with faint praise. Excerpts from the article are in italics with comments in between:

Bush’s Really Good Idea
by Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek Nov. 17 issue

The president finds it easy to embrace democracy, but not the various means to make it happen.

Yes, Mr. Zakaria, and the president finds it easy to embrace pre-emptive war, but finds it “frustrating” to make a successful peace. And, the president finds it easy to embrace invasion of another country, but finds it impossible to embrace the idea of an exit strategy.

A visceral dislike for the president is boxing many otherwise sensible people into a corner because they cannot bring themselves to agree with anything he says.

Surprise, Mr. Zakaria: we’re not the ones who are boxed into a corner. The president and his administration have administered this self-inflicted gaping wound quite nicely, without any help from their critics.

How else to explain the … reaction among so many Democrats, Europeans, and intellectuals to the president’s speech on democracy in the Middle East last week? Whatever the problems…as a speech it stands as one of the most intelligent and eloquent statements by a president in recent memory. If it marks a real shift in strategy, it will go down in history as Bush’s most important speech.

Gotcha, Mr Zakaria: you don’t think Democrats and Europeans are intellectuals, do you? By the way, at least thanks for confirming that “intellectuals” - that is, people who know how to think correctly - are questioning this unfolding quagmire. And, if it’s such a great speech, then how can it be that the president and his cabinet have failed, almost totally, in every aspect of analysis and strategic planning for Iraq.

The president expanded on an analysis that he and national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice have been veering toward for several months. “Sixty years of Western nations’ excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,” he noted.

Compare Mr. Bush’s statement to one made by journalist Lutz Kleveman on NPR Wednesday. His new book, The New Great Game, is about the battles being waged by the United States, China, Russia and Iran for control of new, unparalleled oil resources found in the Caspian Sea. Kleveman ironically used the same time period as Mr. Bush and, noting how we have cynically disregarded the affects of our foreign policy on the Middle East, said: “For sixty years we have treated the Middle East like one big dumb gas station.”

To change policy and achieve his lofty ambitions, President Bush announced a “forward strategy for freedom” that must be adopted for decades to come. Here is the hole in the doughnut. The “forward strategy” is never fleshed out, not even in a few lines, has no substantive elements to it and no programs associated with it. What explains this strange mismatch between a powerful statement of goals and virtual silence about the means?

Good question, Mr. Zakaria. Now we come to an understanding that you have unintentionally given us – one that we have suspected all along about Mr. Bush. He sounds like he has great ideas. He attempts to convince us that it’s his way or the highway, but he doesn’t have the intellectual discernment to weed out the bad advice from the good, or to understand the possible consequences of his decisions. If you think this is an exaggeration, see how Vice President Cheney directed his own set of intelligence sources and influenced Mr. Bush to go to war in Iraq – it’s in the same Newsweek edition this week, right before your article Mr. Zakaria.

I think that the president—and many of his advisers …like one method. Let’s call it the “silver bullet” theory of democratization. It holds that every country is ready for democracy. It’s just evil tyrants who stand in its way. Kill the tyrant, hold elections and the people will embrace democracy and live happily ever after. This theory is particularly seductive to neoconservatives because it means that the one government agency they love—the military—is the principal force for democratization around the world.

Well, this is one veteran who will not keep silent about the military I love. Our military can’t be used aggressively and pre-emptively without abandoning our basic values as a nation, unless we have clear proof and no other choice, as a last resort, to save ourselves and our allies. If our military is used as a “principal force” (read “primary means”), for “democratization”, how are we significantly different from many of the aggressors we so despise in our history books?

The second theory of democratization could be called the “long, hard slog.” It holds that genuine democracy requires the building of strong political institutions, a market economy and a civil society. In order to promote democracy, in this vision, you need economic reform, trade, exchange programs, legal and educational advances, and hundreds of such small-bore efforts. The agencies crucial to this process are the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, even, God forbid, the European Union and the United Nations.

“Building of strong political institutions…(involving) the European Union and the United Nations”, a market economy and a civil society..” What a concept. Unfortunately this administration has failed to understand it so far. Mr. Rumsfeld’s version of “long, hard slog” means a military solution, not a diplomatic one.

The president must see that the first strategy has reached its limits.

Virtually everyone else on the planet has seen it.

For many of the administration’s ideologues, the long, hard slog toward liberal democracy is boring and unsexy.

Let’s see: so it’s better to risk lives and injuries without the clear justification to do so, rather than do the tough, slow work of exhausting all diplomatic solutions first?

The neoconservative writer Robert Kagan recently declared, “We do not really know how to build a liberal society... But we do know a free and fair election when we see one.” This is both defeatist and wrong. In fact, we know what makes a liberal society—independent courts and political institutions, markets, a free press, a middle class—but building it takes time and effort. If you cannot embrace that process, then you are not really embracing democracy.

In the end, Mr. Zakaria, you finally hit it on the head. Mr. Bush’s “war and peace” are from a book that is all too familiar from him. “Good ideas” as you call them – but no idea of the consequences. This is not the leadership we need.

- posted by a Vet @ 7:33 AM -
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
 
Governor Dean Condemns Administration for Failing To Honor Former Prisoners of War

DES MOINES--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., today reacted to the Administration's effort to block American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons during the Persian Gulf war from collecting any of the hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets they won last summer in a federal court ruling against the government of Saddam Hussein:

"On the eve of Veteran's Day, we have learned that President Bush is blocking troops tortured in the first Gulf War from recovering due compensation for their horrible suffering. As we prepare to commemorate the heroism of the patriotic Americans who have served and sacrificed for our country, I am stunned by the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration and their betrayal of our troops," Governor Dean said.

"Instead of blocking the compensation rightfully owed to these war heroes, the President should freeze the profits of Halliburton and his other cronies who are benefiting most from the $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. I call on Congress to ask: if the recent $87 billion allocation does not provide for our veterans who fought in Iraq--where is this money going?" he added.

According to today's New York Times, administration lawyers have argued that Iraqi assets frozen in bank accounts in the United States are needed for Iraqi reconstruction. They also argue that a judgment won by the former American prisoners should be overturned.
Howard Dean also released the following statement today commemorating America's veterans and outlining his policies.

"As President, I will ensure that veterans receive the respect and recognition they so greatly deserve for the sacrifices that they have made serving our nation. This is fundamental to the ideal of the American Community, which my campaign seeks to restore,"Governor Dean said. "Those who have sacrificed for our nation deserve not only our admiration, compassion, and respect, they deserve health care and other tangible benefits that ensure that they can live their lives with respect and dignity."

As Governor, Dean took numerous steps to recognize and support the 40,000 veterans living in Vermont. He enacted legislation to protect state-employed veterans' retirement benefits and to exempt disabled veterans from property taxes. Dean revived the Governor's Advisory Council on Veterans Affairs, and dedicated Vermont's first veterans' cemetery.

As President, Dean said he will not turn his back on veterans. Dean will:
· support and sign legislation that fully funds the VA health care system, to ensure a level of funding that provides every veteran with quality, timely health care.
· Put an end to the Disabled Veterans Tax by supporting and signing legislation authorizing concurrent receipt.
· return the Department of Veterans Affairs to its mission of serving veterans, and educating them about their rights to quality health care rather than hiding their rights from them.
· push for full funding of Veterans Affairs programs that treat mental illness, particularly relating to the lingering stresses of battle.
· provide homeless veterans with the resources and support that they need to regain stability, dignity, and control of their lives.
· support and sign legislation that ensures veterans sufficient G.I. Bill funding to send them not just to, but through, college or vocational school.
· enforce veterans' preference statutes applicable to all executive branch agencies.

Governor Dean dedicated Vermont's first veterans' cemetery in 1993 and revived the Governor's Advisory Council on Veterans Affairs. It was comprised of seven member organizations, representing tens of thousands of American veterans. The members of this organization were the Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, Military Benefits Association, Persian Gulf Veterans, and Waves National.

More information on the governor's veterans policy and his record is available at this site.

Note: For more information, the issue of blocking court-awarded payments to American Gulf War POWs was addressed in a previous blog posting on Friday Sept 26th.
- posted by a Vet @ 10:17 AM -
 
More About This Blog: Q & A

Among the more than 500 hits to this blogsite and over 200 comments & emails here and on Blogforamerica yesterday, were a number of questions and comments about this blog. So here are a few questions & answers to help clarify things:

Q: Is this the official Dean blog/website for Veterans issues?
A: No, it's one of several unofficial Veterans for Dean blogs/websites linked on Blogforamerica or over to the right on this website. This blog is written/edited by me and not directed by the Dean campaign.

Q: What is a "blog" anyway?
A: Good question. I didn't know the answer either until a couple of months ago. It's a contraction of "web log". Blogs are basically personal journals that can be made open for public comment - a sort of diary on line with which to air issues and exchange ideas. Blogforamerica, the Dean official blog, has led the way in pioneering this form of very effectively enabling political grass roots involvement and ideas of all kinds to be surfaced - and has been the vehicle for Gov Dean to far outstrip his opponents in fund raising. The other candidates are way behind.

Q: How come I can't make an entry directly onto your blog?
A: You can! In one of two ways: (1) Find the "Comments" section under each entry below or in the archives and click on that link. You'll be able to register your comments. Don't worry if you're comment seems to be off-topic ("OT" in nerd language) - just write your thoughts. (2) Submit a "Guest Blog" post by e-mail - click the "Email me" link over to the right. As with any blog, the daily posts here on the blog itself are entered by the blog owner. Additionally, this blog is being linked to many more blogs/websites regularly, so many people will see your comments.

Q: How do you pick subjects and how do I know what has already been talked about?
A: For the most part, in the two months since this blog has operated, I have mostly picked the subjects, but with yesterday's exposure, you all have provided many more ideas to be addressed, and they will be. The blog will also be updated to show a list of key subjects that have been covered, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about them some more!

Q: How can I get more involved in Veterans issues?
A: (1) Click the "Veterans for Dean Community" link to the right and sign in; (2) Check out the many other links over to the right; (3) Check on the Blogforamerica link for your state to see if anything is going on where you live, in terms of support to veterans; (4) Check to see if there are local veterans groups that might interest you; (5) Start a veterans "meet-up" where you live (see the Deanforamerica website); (6) Start something yourself to help veterans - the ideas are virtually endless.

And, please be patient if we don't answer your emails and questions right away - we will get to them. This is a two-person operation. My wonderfully talented daughter helps me by maintaining and updating the blog site in addition to her full time job!




- posted by a Vet @ 9:23 AM -
 
A Big "Thank You"

To all of you who have commented on the Veterans Day blog post here and on Blogforamerica yesterday - THANK YOU! The responses by email and comments have been amazing and overwhelming. And thanks for the many ideas, concerns, and issues you want talked about on the Veterans for Dean Blog!

Best wishes as each of you decide what you can do to support our veterans, our fabulous military, and Gov Dean in the days ahead.


- posted by a Vet @ 8:45 AM -
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
 
A Choice on Veterans Day

Veterans Day remembers the sacrifices of so many who have served our country and who continue to do so today. Many, of course, have paid with their lives or disabling injuries over the years. So, I would first ask you to consider taking a moment sometime today to “salute” them in whatever way you choose to do so.

You have seen the bumper stickers, “Support our Troops”, and I know most of you do so, regardless of administration policies and actions. Patriotism isn’t the sole province of Republicans. And, a lot of you have family and friends now in Iraq.

Please also understand that, in my opinion, “troops” includes our veterans, many of whom are being forgotten in a variety of ways by this administration. Nobody was sorry to see Saddam Hussein go. Nevertheless, many of us do not agree with how the Bush administration justified its actions in going to war. Nor do we agree with the Bush Doctrine, including pre-emptive invasions and regime changes as regular courses of action for the future, in the name of Democracy. Nor do we agree with a Patriot Act that threatens the basic freedoms which many of you fought for. Nor do we agree with the deficiencies in veterans’ medical care. Nor do we like the fact that veterans are likely to be homeless three times more than anyone else.

Why should military veterans, or anyone associated with the military, consider any option other than Mr. Bush for the coming 2004 election? I’m a veteran, retired with almost 27 years of service, who no longer believes this administration has the best interests of our veterans and our military in mind. Until two months ago, I (like many veterans) wasn’t going to consider any Democrat – after all, I had voted mostly Republican for 40 years. But the weight of events and the actions of the Bush administration, especially with regard to veterans and the use of our military, including the Reserves and National Guard, caused me to change my mind.

That’s why I decided to put the Veterans for Dean Blog into play. Something inside me said that if I am needing to talk about a lot of things that really bother me about the use of our military and support of our veterans, then I suspect there may be many more of you out there. The Blog is a forum for all of you – you don’t have to be a veteran or in the military - who don’t like the direction their country is taking. And, know this for sure, the blog is NOT intended to create dissent among our troops, veterans or active duty, but to intelligently lay out and discuss ideas. This blog also links to other important Veterans-for-Dean websites and other links of interest for you to check out.

Veterans, there are millions of you out there, and there is a better alternative for 2004! You can have a huge impact. On this Veterans Day while you honor your brothers and sisters in arms, resolve to make things better for those that follow them in the future, and for our country. Gov. Dean has taken time to clearly support veterans and their needs (see his Veterans Day statement on Deanforamerica, then go to Coalition Groups/Veterans for more information). Dr. Dean will be happy to have you on board!


- posted by a Vet @ 8:32 AM -
Monday, November 10, 2003
 
Veterans Hospital System Being Revamped

Vets, for your info: Changes to the VA hospital system appear on the way.

Despite stiff criticism from some veterans and lawmakers who would see local VA hospitals close, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi says he is "optimistic’’ that a major restructuring of the $26 billion VA healthcare system can begin next year.

The goal, said Principi, is to make VA healthcare more efficient, and accessible to more veterans, by closing outdated and under-used facilities and opening modern hospitals and clinics where they are needed most.

Last August, VA completed what Principi describes as the most comprehensive review ever department health facilities. Called CARES (Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services), the draft report recommended major changes at 13 locations.

New hospitals would be built in Las Vegas and Orlando, Fla., new centers for the blind in Biloxi, Miss., and Long Beach, Calif., and new spinal injury centers in Denver; Little Rock, Ark.; Minneapolis and either Albany or Syracuse, N.Y.

Seven old hospitals would be closed: in Brecksville, Ohio; Canandaigua, N.Y.; Gulfport, Miss.; Lexington, Ky.; Livermore, Calif.; Pittsburgh and Waco, Tex.

VA would open 48 new clinics and close or realign other small facilities throughout the country.

The aim is not to cut VA costs, said Principi in a phone interview, but to realign resources over the next 20 years to reflect veteran population shifts and to embrace advances in medical treatment and technology.

We have a responsibility to make changes…much like the private sector has to its systems, and to make sure the extraordinary amount of dollars the American people send us are being spent wisely.’’

Chaired by Everett Alvarez, a former VA deputy administrator and prisoner of war in Vietnam, the commission likely will propose some changes to the VA recommendations when it delivers its report in early December.

Principi said in the end he will accept or reject all the commission recommendations. To pick on some of them, he said, would "politicize’’ the process and "that leads to cynicism and distrust.’’

He hopes to announce a final plan to restructure VA healthcare within a month of accepting the commission report.

Restructuring VA facilities will mean "more health care, not less,’’ Principi said, hoping to assure veterans.

The VA healthcare system has 163 hospitals but a total of 5000 buildings on almost 20,000 acres of land. ``Some facilities we inherited from the Army at the turn of the 20th Century,’’ Principi said. ``At their peak these facilities may have had 2000 patients. Today there may be fewer than 200 patients and we’re maintaining 200 or even 350 acres of land.’’

Principi noted a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that found the VA spends almost $400 million a year on under-used facilities. Redirected, he said, that money "can buy a lot of health care and state-of-the-art ambulatory clinics and sophisticated bed towers and surgical suites and more digital technology so a doctor on the west coast can be diagnosing a patient on the east coast. That’s what we’re tying to accomplish.’’

Realignment means "making difficult decisions,’’ Principi said. "I appreciate the sensitivity at the local community [level].’’

Veterans’ groups, he said, "are keeping an open mind and have not tried to sabotage this effort in any way. They recognize that healthcare has changed and the demographics of the veterans population have changed.’’

- posted by a Vet @ 10:23 AM -
Friday, November 07, 2003
 
Another Kind of Sacrifice...

Reservist Goes to War, Then Returns Home to Financial Ruin
Byron Pitts
CBS News


November 6, 2003, Summary: US Reserve and National Guard soldiers ordered to active duty by President George Bush to fight in his war in Iraq face enormous pay cuts. Soldiers are supposed to be protected by labors laws and credit laws. However, businesses are ignoring the laws. Bush and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao must immediately take full responsibility and act to stop the terrible treatment returning veterans face from employers and creditors...

Modesto, California - On a sun soaked street in northern California, Air Force reservist Oscar Rodriguez is finally back home from active duty, where, as CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, the high and unexpected cost of war has taken a toll. Air Force reservist Master Sgt. Oscar Rodriquez (Photo: CBS)

Despite federal laws protecting active duty reservist from creditors during wartime, the creditors kept calling. Their home is now in foreclosure.

Rodriguez and wife Kathy have separated.

"They ain't giving us a loan cause I got bad credit," says Rodriguez.

"It was hard seeing my mom," says his daughter Desiree. "I mean seeing her stressed and seeing her cry - it hurts a lot."

When Master Sgt. Rodriquez and his company were activated for one year -- on eight hours notice -- he left behind his wife to run the couple's construction company.

"My dad was away and so she's pretty much was doing this on her own cause he can't do anything about it when he's gone, and I can't really do anything about it, but I try," says Desiree.

They all tried, but with Rodriguez at war, repairing Air Force cargo planes, the family income was cut by 80 percent.

"I lost the bids for my construction projects," says Rodriguez. "I lost my savings. I lost my credit. My credit history - it's in shambles."

Despite federal laws protecting active duty reservist from creditors during wartime, the creditors kept calling. Their home is now in foreclosure.

"You do everything that you're supposed to do without asking for help," says his wife Kathy. "All you want is for everyone to do the right thing."

The Rodriguez family aren't they only ones who've sacrificed. Of the nearly 200,000 reservists on active duty in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, one-third have taken a pay cut in order to serve their country.

Rodriguez is now trying to rebuild his business one step at a time. He's gone from building hotels to kitchen counters. He's suing his creditors as much for the principle as the money.

"It's about every soldier, sailor, airman or marine," says Rodriguez. "Anybody who's serving our country has a right to at least not be concerned about the wolves knocking at the door."

Asked if they're going to recover, Rodriguez and his wife say they aren't sure.

"We're separated,'' said Kathy Rodriguez, as her husband sat silently beside her.
The strain of duty and debt may have cost this couple their marriage. Yet, Rodriguez has re-enlisted.

He's a member of an Air Force Honor Guard.

For him, sacrifice isn't a slogan. In war there are casualties, both overseas and at home.

Our citizen Reservists and National Guard are all volunteers. But even with their best efforts to prepare themselves and their families for possible separation, many can't avoid financial disaster. Maybe there is no way to completely compensate them fully for their commitment to our country, but we ought to figure out better ways to help them. Otherwise, we not only create havoc in their lives, but we further jeopardize our ability to draw people into their ranks in the future. Like many other issues addressed on this blog, this is one that needs close attention now.





- posted by a Vet @ 11:59 AM -
Thursday, November 06, 2003
 
Welcome Halliburton Investors!

In case you missed this, you and your tax dollars are supporting a 2-nation ripoff (U.S./Iraq) by the famed Halliburton Corporation to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in petroleum product charges (and reconstruction projects). So before you spend all of your tax cut provided by the administration (if you haven't done so already), just realize that a good chunk already went to supporting the huge conglomerate, formerly led by Dick Cheney, your virtual Vice President.

The Halliburton/Carlyle Group world-wide illuminati often spends your money and you don't know it. But most of the blogosphere has known about them for a long time, to the point where it's a running joke on numerous blogs/websites. Somehow, Congress is just now noticing.

Virtually every one of you, whether you have been employed in the private or public sectors, have had to sign a statement (or agree verbally) with your employer, saying that you would not engage in conflicts of interest or even the appearance of a conflict.

Why is it that this administration is so blatantly unethical with your tax dollars? I hope you have an answer. I don't.


- posted by a Vet @ 8:38 AM -
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
 
Support Your Troops (cont.), or How to Get Around the Casualties Problem:


WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 — When the Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday in Iraq, killing 15 Americans, President Bush let his defense secretary do the talking and stayed out of sight at his ranch.

The president has not attended the funeral of any American soldiers killed in action, White House officials say. And with violence in Baghdad dominating the headlines this week, he has used his public appearances to focus on the health of the economy and the wildfires in California.

But after some of the deadliest attacks yet on American forces, the White House is struggling with the political consequences for a president who has said little publicly about the mounting casualties of the occupation.

The quandary for Mr. Bush, administration officials say, is in finding a balance: expressing sympathy for fallen soldiers without drawing more attention to the casualties by commenting daily on every new death.

White House officials say their strategy, for now, is to avoid having the president mention some deaths but not others, and so avoid inequity. (Mr. Bush does send a personal letter to the family of every soldier killed in action and has met privately with relatives at military bases.)

Republicans also acknowledge that White House officials, mindful of history, do not want Mr. Bush to become hostage to daily body counts, much as President Lyndon B. Johnson was during the Vietnam War. Concern about being consumed by the headlines, administration officials say, is another reason the president did not specifically address the downed Chinook on Sunday.

"If a helicopter were hit an hour later, after he came out and spoke, should he come out again?" Mr. Bartlett said. The public "wants the commander in chief to have proper perspective and keep his eye on the big picture and the ball. At the same time, they want their president to understand the hardship and sacrifice that many Americans are enduring at a time of war. And we believe he's striking that balance."

So Mr. Bush is continuing to refer as broadly as possible to the sacrifice of all, as when reporters asked him in California on Tuesday to comment directly on the attack against the helicopter.
"I am saddened any time that there's a loss of life," replied Mr. Bush, who added that the soldiers killed had died "for a cause greater than themselves," the campaign against terrorism.

Some Republicans say they are concerned that the White House strategy leaves the president open to accusations from Democrats that he is isolated from the real pain of war.

"I have to say, I think we have to note tragedies of this magnitude," the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, told reporters on Tuesday, referring to Sunday's attack. "I think it needs to be expressed over and over by the president, and I think all deference ought to be given those dead and wounded who return home."

"Even so," Mr. (David) Gergen said, "we're now encountering deaths at rates we haven't seen since Vietnam, and I think it's important for the country to hear from the president at times like these, and for families to know. I think the weight is on the side of clear expression."


Some close to the president say another reason he has not expressed more public sympathy for individual soldiers killed in Iraq is his determination to let families have their privacy. He was offended, his friends say, by what he saw at times as President Bill Clinton's exploitation of private grief for political gain.

Like other presidents, Mr. Clinton appeared at some military funerals. In October 2000, he attended a memorial service in Norfolk, Va., for the 17 sailors killed in the bombing of the guided-missile destroyer Cole. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan attended a memorial service at Camp Lejeune, N.C., for 241 marines killed in Beirut. President Jimmy Carter attended ceremonies for troops killed in the failed hostage-rescue mission in Iran.

Marlin Fitzwater, who was White House press secretary to President Bush's father, recalled that the elder Mr. Bush "went to a number of memorial ceremonies" where he met with families of troops killed in action in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Yes, it's an uncomfortable position to be in Mr. President, isn't it - one that you and your administration put yourself in. Your "support for the troops" and their families is evident, when it's to your advantage and in support of your agenda. There are millions of veterans who will be voting who are watching your words and your deeds carefully. When they do vote in 2004, they will look closely at Iraq and in how you really supported the troops, and many of them will be able to say with conviction "mission accomplished" - good bye.

- posted by a Vet @ 11:39 AM -
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
 
Vietnam II?

Yes, we know. The administration has time and again attempted to debunk the Vietnam War as having any comparisons to Iraq. Why is it then, that various senior administration officials are, more and more, using the same terminology and concepts - some of it chillingly reminiscent - to describe what is going on in Iraq?

The language of the Vietnam war has crept into the U.S. debate on Iraq, with officials and pundits talking of guerrilla warfare, pacifying the country, combating insurgents and even how to leave with honor.

The trend has become particularly pronounced since Sunday's guerrilla rocket attacks on the Baghdad hotel where U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying and Monday's four bombings that killed at least 35 people near a Red Cross building and three police stations in the Iraqi capital.

In an editorial on Wednesday, The Washington Post said the wave of attacks "probably is intended to have the same effect as the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam: to convince Americans that their troops are committed to a losing cause and must withdraw -- even if, in military terms, that is not the case.

"The attacks so far ... like those of Tet, pose no strategic threat to the U.S. military presence in the country; they also pale beside those of 1968, which cost the lives of more than 3,800 U.S. servicemen and 14,000 Vietnamese civilians," it added. "Still, the bombings have shocked Iraqis, intimidated some would-be allies and strengthened doubts in Congress and the public about the Iraq mission."

Sandy Berger, national security adviser to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, on Tuesday asked a question that long haunted U.S. policy-makers on Vietnam: "Regardless of how we got here -- how do we get out with honor and with integrity and with a result that is better than what we started with?"

'SOMEWHAT PACIFIED'

Asked by a European journalist last week how the Iraq war was going, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage spoke of pacification -- a classic Vietnam term -- to suggest that much of the country appeared to be quiescent.

"It's a mixed picture, but ... about 80 percent of the country, we feel is more or less benign and somewhat pacified," he said. "About 20 percent, particularly the so-called Baathist Triangle, is still troubled."

His comment about most attacks occurring in the so-called Sunni triangle of Iraq roughly defined by Baghdad, Tikrit and Haditha brought little solace to Berger, who suggested this was a textbook tactic of a "classic guerrilla war."

"The fact that things are going well in many parts of the country is not to me overly comforting because in an insurgency things are generally going well in most of the country because the insurgents pick, in a very strategic way, high-value targets to create disruption in some parts," Berger said.

Berger said he agreed with President Bush that a stable, modernizing Iraq would be a boon to the region but he feared a premature U.S. withdrawal by "Iraqification" -- or quickly turning security responsibility to Iraqi forces and pulling out U.S. forces -- could be a major mistake.

CREDIBILITY AT STATE

Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Vietnam analogy was being applied to Iraq because Americans seemed to be grasping that, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote in an Oct. 16 memo, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is likely to be "a long, hard slog."

"Questions are arising as to whether the American people will have the heart to stay the course. Those are just the questions that arose ... in the Vietnam War," Buchanan said.

"They are coming not because the particular attacks are similar, nor because the configuration of problems in the two nations are similar. What is similar is the emergence of the unhappy realization that this is a very difficult problem that promises more pain than it does reward for the foreseeable future," he said.

But the point is, if we are staying no matter what, then we need radical surgery in terms of a viable exit strategy and how we support our troops to get the job done. This blog site will continue to focus on these issues, among others important to veterans who "have been there and done that."





- posted by a Vet @ 11:01 AM -