Chickenhawks Stay Home To Roost

BOB HERBERT writes in the New York Times:

"The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.
To say that this is a national disgrace is to wallow in the shallowest understatement. The nation will always give lip-service to support for the troops, but for the most part Americans do not really care about the men and women we so blithely ship off to war, and the families they leave behind."

I seriously suggest you pass the link to the article around and join the conversation. My contribution is a simple observation - that when war becomes a cynical tool of partisan ambition, when it's an economic activity rather than an issue of common security, when the human costs here and now are justified in terms of supposed ideological threats in a future that is accessed by some mythical slippery slope greased with "tolerance" and "compassion," well. That's a problem. Because it means that in the process of trying to "win," you have lost far more than could ever have been taken from you.



Yellow Elephant, where were you? - Civilian by webcarve
Create customized shirts with zazzle

For The Well-Regulated Militia Member

ADVERTISMENT

Constitutionally , if you are an American Citizen between the ages of 14 and 41 (I believe), you are a member of your local militia. It's a custom that has lapsed, in favor of the National Guard, the Reserves and other Federal and State agencies, but it's almost impossible to overstate how deeply suspicious our founders were of centralized authorities with standing forces.

And, considering the headlines - and more importantly, the blogs - it's becoming difficult to push the idea that every citizen is responsible for "National Security" on a house to house level.

These days, the term "militia" is confused with scary camoflage-wearing nutcases preaching the "end times" or the ulitmate collapse of Civilization As We Know It, and so we tend to ignore the concept of confident preparedness. But, really, that's all being part of a "well-regulated militia" is all about; ensuring that enough people with the right training and with the right tools exist so that wherever an emergency exists, it can be dealt with in the most rapid manner possible.

A volunteer Fire Department is a perfect example of a "well-regulated militia." Now, it's comforting to think that dealing with actual outbreaks of violence, or attempted oppression on the part of an overweening state or national government is a threat long past - but some of us are starting to wonder if it might not be a good idea to have some practical experience with small infantry tactics as well.

And that's where the sponsor of this post, Tippmann paintball guns, comes in. Tippmann paintball is an affordable and enjoyable way to build skills that, God help us, will never be called upon. But if you do need to pick up an assault weapon in defense of you and yours, in company with your fellow citizens - you will have a good idea of how to use it effectively.

This is something that does not automatically come with the purchase of an AK47. Ask any dead Iraqi insurgent.

In this case, practice makes perfect - without being a bother or a chore.

The Authoritarian Reflex

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar' - washingtonpost.com

The authoritarian reflex to a failed policy is not to examine the policy, but to assume that those entrusted with the implementation were not "up to the task." The answer is always more power, concentrated more densely, with fewer checks upon the authority in question.

Now, the idea of a "War Czar" empowered to do the job right with the authority to make militarily sensible decisions based on the reality of the situation is appealing, even to this anti-authoritarian. I'm not really so much opposed to the idea of authoritative people having power as the opposite, the assumption that the power to enforce one's authority grants one the magical ability to make wise and prudent decisions. And I see that this idea comes from the latter school of authoritarianism - if only we give the right person enough power, they will be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But the response of people who are qualified for the position have all demonstrated their qualifications by refusing the job.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Yep, some vague concept of what "victory" would look like is important. More significantly, it would have to be a victory on the terms of the American People as a whole, not just the cheerleaders of war. It would have to be significant, meaningful and tangible - not merely a symbolic moment.

Most importantly, it would have to achieve lasting, positive change. I do my philosophical opponents the credit of believing all of these things were not just possible, but inevitable at the start of the war. Frankly, I suspected myself that while the results would be less positive than the cheerleaders suspected, they would nonetheless be a net positive, given what I understood about rational war-planning and preparation. In other words, I made certain reasonable assumptions about what sane people and competent military organizations do before they "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

I, along with everyone else, was betrayed in that assumption. There appears to have been no planning, no precautions, no allowances made for "the fog of war," no preparations made for casualties and consequences and most damning of all, no thought toward what victory would look like, and because of that most fundamental flaw - nobody has been able to plot a course toward it.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

And this is the lesson that we must take from the situation; that there are policies that are so deeply flawed, so fundamentally erroneous and unethical that no-one with the character, competence and moral stature to lead soldiers will take it on.

One of the great unstated consequences of this war - emblematic as it is of what happens to Bushite policies when they are implemented - is a broad loss of confidence in the competence of leadership. The greatest test of leadership is how you react to unanticipated problems - and the second greatest is how many problems inherent in your policies you anticipate and forestall.

While the Bush administration has clearly done everything it could to avoid anything resembling prudence and preparation, it was not sufficiently opposed by those who's very careers were supposedly based on knowing better. And those who were in a position to know better, should have known better as soon as the directives hit their desks. They must have known that the troop levels were insufficient, that training times given were insufficient, that the equipment mix and logistical trains were unprepared and that - most critically - they were woefully short of reliable intelligence and translation resources.

And yet - better to keep their jobs than to act in the interest of the men and women they were responsible to, and in proper deference to the office of Commander In Chief.

Authoritarianism is a lot like Communism - there are specific circumstances where it works, and works very well indeed - but it does not generalize to larger, more complex situations; for their inherent problems are identical - trust. People in either situation donate a portion of their liberty, their resources and personal power to people they can trust, and if there is no basis for trust, the appearance and reality will be two entirely different things - leading to a system divided against itself and effectively serving only the self-delusions of those seemingly in charge of the entire mess.

This leads me, and millions of others, to come to the conclusion that there is no way out of this current mess that resembles "politics as usual." Those trying to avoid political fallout, and who are aiming at political victory in 2008 are betting that Bush will not do something elementally stupid between then and now. I don't think that's a bet that's worth the prize. Indeed, Democrats should be looking at the question of "if we win in 2008, what will we have won?"

We do not need politics as usual; we need statesmanship. And we need to impeach the miserable failure, purge our government of his taint, and I would strongly suggest going so far as to impeach those members of the Supreme Court that selected him in the first place.

tag: Impeach the President, Miserable Failure, War Czar, Authoritarianism, Jack Sheehan, 2008, politics

A Reality-Based Republican

Alan K. Simpson - Bigotry That Hurts Our Military - washingtonpost.com:

"As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review -- and overturn -- the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for 'don't ask, don't tell.' But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under 'don't ask, don't tell,' including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's 'foreign language deficit' and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a 'straight' way to translate Arabic? Is there a 'gay' Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war."

The former Republican Senator from Wyoming goes on to wryly observe that the armed forces have been forced to issue an increasing number of "moral waivers" to convicted felons, leading us to wonder how, say, a convicted rapist is less of a problem in service to our nation than a gay man or woman who has committed no such offense.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a bastard compromise that had one benefit; to allow some time for it to percolate through the military that gay people could, have and do serve without it becoming an issue. It seems that it has.

Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.

There's another point here. It was properly Conservative to be concerned about the potential effects on the military of open service in '93. I would have argued that the concern was misplaced, but nonetheless I could not then and cannot say now that I'd have been correct. Open service, given our military culture, might well have led to some very ugly problems - though probably more due to the attitudes of "straight" service-members.

But that was then and this is now. Sen. Simpson demonstrates for us what a "reality-based" Conservative looks like.

tag: don't ask don't tell, gays in the military, military readiness, Iraq War, Supporting the Troops, Uniform Code of Military Justice, cultural warfare, Alan K. Simpson

This article is illustrated with a beautiful Gays in the Military design kindly provided by The Last Straw, an extremely gay shop featuring a variety of patriotic and flag designs.

Profiles in Indifference

A long-standing policy of neglect and indifference creates a "perfect storm" for the Bush Pentagon.

Washington Post: Sandy Karen was horrified when her 21-year-old son was discharged from the Naval Medical Center in San Diego a few months ago and told to report to the outpatient barracks, only to find the room swarming with fruit flies, trash overflowing and a syringe on the table. "The staff sergeant says, 'Here are your linens' to my son, who can't even stand up," said Karen, of Brookeville, Md. "This kid has an open wound, and I'm going to put him in a room with fruit flies?" She took her son to a hotel instead. "My concern is for the others, who don't have a parent or someone to fight for them," Karen said. "These are just kids. Who would have ever looked in on my son?"

When the first congressional hearing about the care of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center opens this morning in a campus auditorium, many eyes will turn to Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who has served as the Army's top doctor since he gave up command of the hospital in 2004. The hearing will allow Kiley to explain why bureaucratic tangles and horrid conditions made life so difficult for outpatients at the Army's premier hospital, while also likely putting him in a position of defending his job.

Though members of Congress have called for Kiley to step down and take responsibility for the problems at Walter Reed, he has been spared so far.
Other leaders have not been so fortunate: Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, the hospital's commander the past six months, was fired on Thursday, and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey was forced to resign on Friday, in part because he appointed Kiley to temporarily take over Weightman's job.

The Army Times has extensive coverage as well - and often so tightly written, it's impossible to pull out a key graph without losing critical context. I offer a selection handle them with lead graph and link and the rest in the yellow link box below the cut.

Walter Reed woes bring turmoil at the top

The more than 1 million soldiers of the Army, deeply involved on two war fronts, suddenly find themselves serving under leadership tainted by scandal and in critical transition. Army Secretary Francis Harvey is out, pushed out the door by his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Walter Reed chief fired; critics say more must go

When the Army’s top medical officer, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, fired Maj. Gen. George Weightman on March 1 in response to problems with housing and medical evaluations of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it triggered one of Washington’s favorite sports — the blame game.

Walter Reed topic of five hearings next week

The Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal involving the living conditions, medical treatment and retirement process of wounded combat veterans will be the subject of five congressional hearings next week, including one on Monday that is expected to include testimony from the hospital commander who was relieved Thursday.

I point out - again - that these issues are long standing, substantive and need an approach far more substantive than hand-wringing, head-rolling and committee investigations. However, potential solutions have the virtue of being fairly obvious.

But obvious need alone doesn't seem to have ever swayed the Pentagon - one more reason for taking the responsibility for veteran's health care away from them.

The comment of one authoritative veteran:

Read all Military Times coverage about Walter Reed Army Medical Center: Official: Gates fired Army Secretary (March 2) Democrats say Harvey’s ouster isn’t enough (March 2) Walter Reed topic of five hearings next week (March 2) Maj. Gen. Eric Schoomaker named new Walter Reed head (March 2) Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief (March 2) Walter Reed chief fired; critics say more must go (March 2) Army denies patients face daily inspections (Feb. 28) Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet (Feb. 27) Walter Reed soldier wins small victory (Feb. 27) Gates’ candor on hospital woes lauded (Feb. 27 Pentagon names members of Walter Reed panel (Feb. 23) Renovations underway at Walter Reed (Feb. 22) Wounded and waiting (Feb. 17)

Retired Brig. Gen. David Grange said it will be up to Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody to provide steady leadership for the service while Harvey’s replacement and incoming Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey settle into their jobs.

“As the vice chief, he is going to be the steadfast leader in this period,” Grange said. “You really have to have Cody kind of holding things together.”

Grange said he was surprised to hear that conditions at Walter Reed had deteriorated so badly and said that in the end, Harvey is responsible.

“If you are in charge, you are accountable,” Grange said. “I’m sure they were not resourced the way they should have been.”

Grange said being wounded twice in the Vietnam War showed him first-hand that medical care for wounded soldiers is always neglected.

“When you are going to go to war, what never is financed is the second- and third-order effects like veterans benefits and patient care,” he said. “That’s always frustrated me. Having been wounded a couple of times and sent to [military] hospitals, ... you see a lot of things.”

It's an ugly fact of war that fatalities are a great deal less trouble and expense than casualties - and not just in terms of money, logistics and manpower. Dead heroes cannot embarrass the commanders responsible for their posthumous heroism. LIVING veterans, however, have a distressing tendency to criticise, to organize and worst of all - work hard to one day find themselves on congressional oversight committees interviewing other veterans who will not decently and loyally cover the asses of their superiors.

I suspect that it was no different in the Punic Wars than it is now; this is not so much a result of a US military problem as it is a problem of humans who are in the Military. Disabled, hideously wounded survivors are far less romantic - and far more depressing than Tombs of Unknown Soldiers. Soldiers cope with death rather well. The idea of spending the rest of your life pissing into a bag from a hole where the Unit Commander used to live is not nearly so easy to deal with.

This means that higher command spends a great deal of time Not Thinking about it, and when it comes down to a choice between something sexy - like Patriot Missiles, Aircraft Carriers or a next-generation gee-whiz asskicker of a fighter jet - routine care for vets and even current active members isn't even on their radar.

Oddly enough - I have a great deal of difficulty blaming them for that, since it seems to be a nigh-unavoidable side-effect of being in military service. As damnable and unforgivable as the outcome is, this is just as much a failure of general citizen accountability as it is of military duty.

Call me crazy, or socialist if you will, but to me, when someone steps up and takes on the duty of defending their country, the last thing they should ever have to be concerned about is having lived through it, only to find themselves living in a cardboard box under a bridge with rotting teeth and cirrhosis from trying to make the nightmares go away. They faced those demons for those of us who "had other priorities," like our Vice President. They deserve, at the very least, to be comfortably housed, well fed and cared for if their duties have left them incapable of anything more.

This is not charity. It is a solemn duty and a true moral obligation.

I believe that Kipling said it better than I a long time ago;

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

We need compressive medical and social services available to everyone in need - and I've made a libertarian case for that before and will again. However, before anyone in civvies benefits, we need to start here, and now. Today. Our military veterans have earned the right to be first in line, because our collective panic and hysteria PUT them on that line. This is absolutely a "no excuses, Sir" situation for all of us above the age of reason.

But, since we ARE pointing fingers at those who should have known, and could have done something but preferred to not annoy their superiors - why not fire the Commander in Chief? It is a matter of both symbolic and practical urgency that transcends politics as usual.

George Bush will undoubtedly veto or ignore anything implies accountability to those who have born the cost and consequence of his ambitions, while continuing to flail about in increasingly belligerent and dangerous ways. George Bush is in fact the single most easily addressed threat to our National Security. We need to impeach him and generally clean house in the Executive Branch so that come 2008 we may possibly be served by someone worthy of national and international respect - and with perhaps some due humility for the honor and understanding of the responsibility of an office that used to be referred to as "leader of the free world."

tag: veterans affairscasualties, vets, rehab, , common decency, accountablity, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Surgeon General, Building 18, Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, Kevin Kiley, universal health care, morality, ethics, impeach the president

Walter Reed: Another victim of the "Privitization Fetish"

The Neoconservative fetish for privatizing (eg, outsourcing to companies who support the Administration) has come home to roost again.

Even those who honestly support the idea in theory must be wondering how the theory failed to translate into practice. For them, I shall willingly supply the answer, one that generally eludes theorists of all ideologies.

"Human Factors."

Army Secretary Ousted - washingtonpost.com: "The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena yesterday to compel Weightman to testify at a congressional hearing Monday.

The committee also released an internal Army memorandum reportedly written in September in which the Walter Reed garrison commander, Col. Peter Garibaldi, warned Weightman that 'patient care services are at risk of mission failure' because of staff shortages brought on by the privatization of the hospital's support workforce."

Or in other words, a large proportion of the support workforce at Walter Reed are not within the Commanding General's chain of command. Only one word for that, in my little green book:

Unacceptable!

It's unacceptable from a performance standard, obviously. It's unacceptable from a command perspective, and it should be damn well obviously unacceptable from a security standpoint; if I were a terrorist looking for a high-value but poorly secured military target, it would have to be Walter Reed. It has a great deal of symbolic value, it's packed with people and I will bet you money that damn near anyone can get a job with one or another outside contractors.

This, of course, neglects the other obvious means of access - joining the Army itself. But at least there are procedures that should limit that option - and limiting options is what security is all about.

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and a close ally of a leading war critic, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), said Bush's new commission is too little too late. "He's the executive," Moran said. "This has been six years, and now six years later, after an awful lot of neglect, he's going to get around to putting a commission together, a study to tell him what to do. . . . I think he's feeling politically desperate."

White House officials said politics played no role in their decision to form the commission, saying that Bush is genuinely outraged by the conditions at Walter Reed and that he learned about them from the recent news reports. "Once the Walter Reed stories ran, there was a collective feeling in the building, and certainly from the president, that whatever reasons or excuses, it was unacceptable," said Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary.

Cough. Choke. Sputter!

First: Can you think of a more damning statement than "the President learned of this through news reports?"

Well, George, what DID you expect, given your habit of expecting the incompetent sociopaths who are willing to give you their personal fealty to perform up to the standards of those who have a professional grasp of reality and the resources to deal with it? What makes you think that they'd do anything other than blow sunshine up your ass, given your shining example?

Second:

Mission accomplished?

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley thought so. After the media tour of Building 18, the Army's surgeon general gave a news conference. "I do not consider Building 18 to be substandard," he said of a facility Priest and Hull found full of "mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses" and other delights. "We needed to do a better job on some of those rooms, and those of you that got in today saw that we frankly have fixed all of those problems. They weren't serious, and there weren't a lot of them."

Kiley might have had a stronger case if men wearing Tyvek hazmat suits and gas masks hadn't walked through the lobby while the camera crews waited for the tour to start, or if he hadn't acknowledged, moments later, that the entire building would have to be closed for a complete renovation. The general also seemed to miss a larger point identified by other officials: Walter Reed's problem isn't of mice and mold but a bureaucracy that has impeded the recovery of wounded soldiers. [emphasis added]

This situation is utterly predictable, given George Bush's approach to command and consequences - or more to the point, his approach to those who take exception to his approach.

As a result, wounded soldiers who cannot be "recycled" back into combat have exactly as much "mission value" as a discarded MRE packet. That should have been apparent given the Administration cuts to funding for Veteran's health care, but for some, those dry facts were apparently a little too abstract.

This, however, is what those budget decisions translate into - a situation that does not even get a coat of paint until it becomes public knowledge.

One wonders what other indignities and shortfalls our troops have to endure on a regular basis because their needs and the needs of their families are being neglected.

But I do have an idea, and I think it's a powerfully GOOD idea. I think our state Governors, (or in some cases, Lieutenant Governors) with the support of their legislatures and their State Congressional delegations, should take the initiative in addressing this issue. Whether or not George Bush and the Pentagon is on board they should pass whatever State and Federal legislation is required to put competent, ethical and accountable leadership in place.

I would suggest that these facilities be placed in the hands of State Guard and Reserve units, supervised by people with both civilian experience and military rank and a decent regard for public opinion and their professional reputations.

This matter that is, very much within the moral authority of a state Governor and I doubt that anyone will grudge what monies need to be shifted, donated or raised to address it. I cannot see a real downside to the House and Senate giving such moral authority cover of law, either. Not for anyone of any party.

This is indeed a failure of leadership, at the very highest level and the leaders of the House and Senate, as well as the leadership of the various States need to realize that. Waiting for our current Commander in Chief to collapse under the weight of his own conscience bears an unacceptable price in human life and dignity, aside from being wishful thinking.

But it's well within the power of Congress to fix this, and fix it quickly, with a simple, two-pronged approach. The first is to reassert State's Rights in the matter of command authority over Guards and Reserves. Guards should NEVER be under the Pentagon's authority; Reserves should only be under that command when activated and deployed in time of war.

"In time of war" being "a state of war having been formally declared." The framers of the constitution - being wise and prescient folks - realized that large standing armies were problematic, and required the Congress to reauthorize the existence of any standing force once every two years. This has not changed.

Do we need a standing force? Of course we do. There are a lot of things our armed forces do that require that degree of commitment, and that level of professional competence, especially within the more technical areas. But it needn't be as large as it is, what it does need is a greater emphasis on training and maintaining the expertise of Guards and Reserves, while fostering and developing a relatively large cadre of experienced officers and noncoms.

The second fork is eliminate the entire redundant military health-care system. NOT specialized hospitals, particularly, and not the security of military staffing - but the clerical and record keeping aspects need to be rationalized in the same way civilian medical care needs to be, so why not address both at once?

The most straightforward way of assuring both quality of care and appropriate record-keeping is to enact universal health-care legislation. As the situation is fairly urgent, both politically and as a matter of practical reality, this is not a good time to "reinvent the wheel."

An entire proven software and administration infrastructure and exists in Canada and it works well. Despite what critics may say, it's not a particularly socialist solution, other than it being partially taxpayer supported. (Individuals do pay premiums and you can opt out in favor of private coverage - which is handled in precisely the same way.)

It will work fine whether or not the money is directed by the system from the DOD, the VA, the Treasury or individual insurance plans, and particularly in the case of Vets with both military and civilian coverage, this would vastly simplify matters for everyone. The truly important thing is the accounting, record keeping and cost-savings a single, secure, nationwide medical service delivery system can achieve.

Let's import it, and I bet it will save everyone involved - including the insurance industry - enough to pay for a much improved taste in beer, as well as a vast national sigh of relief that will translate into a great deal of political capital for everyone smart enough to get behind and push.



tag: impeach the president, impeach, accountablity, George W. Bush, Miserable Failure, Building 18, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Kevin Kiley, Secretary of the Army, morality, ethics, rehab, health care, veterans, state's rights, military