Why Don’t Rushpubliscums Respect Our Military Leaders?

Hasn’t the Rushpubliscum cry always been that they “listen to the commanders” whenever anything military comes up? Isn’t it supposed to be the dems that are deaf to the wishes of our military leaders?

And yet….. these Rushpubliscums, who love and respect our military leaders so much, simply dismiss them when they say something that runs counter to Ruhpubliscum dogma.

I guess that the military isn’t good for much besides photo-ops after all, at least to the Rushpubliscums. Dog knows that most of them have done everything they could think of to avoid actually SERVING. Come to think of it… maybe it isn’t hard to understand why the Rushpubliscums wouldn’t have much use for military commanders. We tend to understand things better when we’ve actually been a part of them.

John Kerry, who is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, was belittled and vilified by these “patriotic” Rushpubliscums a long time before they started vilifying STILL SITTING military people, so Kerry knows a little bit about the Rushpubliscum mentality when it comes to servicepeople. He took the time to lay it out for us.

“Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates are both political appointees. They’re going to be biased. They’re going to say what the administration wants them to say.” – U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr.

Stunning. That was my reaction when I listened to a freshman Republican Congressman rebut the principled position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” needed to end and that gay members of the Armed Services should be able to serve their country without fear that just being who they are would end their service.

It was especially alarming to hear the judgment of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates dismissed so easily as ‘biased.’

Anyone who knows Admiral Mullen or Bob Gates knows damn well that neither of them say what any Administration just wants them to say.

This is, after all, Secretary Bob Gates – a lifelong Republican who was appointed to positions of high trust and leadership by President Ronald Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W Bush. This is a Defense Secretary who planned to leave government and had to be talked into continuing to serve in a Democratic Administration. He is doing his duty today out of patriotism, not political ambition or partisanship.

And this is, after all, the same Admiral Mullen who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W Bush. A four star Admiral who has spent 42 years wearing the uniform of his country. He’s tough. He’s independent. He speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth. Indeed, at Tuesday’s hearing, when Republicans members of the Senate Armed Services Committee accused him of “undue command influence” and of obeying “directives” from President Obama, Admiral Mullen responded in just the way you would expect a man of his caliber. “This is not about command influence,” he said. “This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously.”

But let’s test what Congressman Hunter said. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just automatically sing from the same playbook as the Administration? Ironically, the last time a Democratic President tried to lift the ban on gays on the military, the Chairman of the JCS, who happened to be a Republican appointed by his Republican predecessor, broke with the President and opposed gays serving openly. His name was General Colin Powell. The Republicans back then didn’t think to question the impartiality of that political appointee.

Of course, today, General Powell has changed his position – read the story here -
and he stands with Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates .

This is not 1993. We have come a long way as a country, and we have come a long way as a military to arrive at this moment when I believe our men and women in uniform agree with the Commander in Chief and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is, as Admiral Mullen put it, “the right thing to do.”

This has been a rocky journey. In 1993, I testified in front of Senator Strom Thurmond’s Armed Services Committee in favor of lifting the ban. I said then and I believe even more fervently now that, “when it comes to defending our country, we cannot afford to waste the bravery and service of a single American. This is a time to find public servants, not public scapegoats.”

And it hasn’t always been Democrats making the case.

Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, a conservative Republican icon, once argued: “You don’t have to be straight in the military, you just have to be able to shoot straight.” Not long after he retired from the Senate in 1987, he tried to warn his fellow Republicans that “eventually the ban will be lifted” and the sooner the better. Rep. Duncan Hunter may claim that he never served with anyone in the military who was openly gay, but he’d do well to read what Senator Goldwater once rightly observed, “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.”

Anyone who believes otherwise should again study Admiral Mullen’s testimony about a policy which “forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend this country.”

Senator John McCain, who replaced Barry Goldwater in the Senate, certainly understood the opposition to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In 2006, as he was preparing for his successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, McCain told an audience at Iowa State University that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”

Today, not just John McCain, but everyone in positions of public responsibility should understand that the moment is now – the leadership of our military are joining the Commander in Chief in saying, the time for change has come.

Indeed, it has.

One of the best soldiers I ever served alongside was gay. I knew gay and lesbian soldiers at almost every post I ever went to. They, for the most part, conducted themselves honorably while in uniform, and much less noisily than I did off-hours. This notion that somehow “cohesion” is going to be affected by gay people serving is known by damn near all of us who actually have served to be utter, complete bullshit.

But the Rushpubliscums, as always, have no problem throwing honorable men and women-up to and including the top brass-under a bus if they can score a few points with their hateful, racist, bigoted “base.” Classy, guys. Real fucking classy.

Crossposted at Reconstitution 2.0

Sphere: Related Content

Incremental Change: Fighting For PTSD War Casualties

Two items in the media caught my attention this week that I believe are worth noting. First, Army Times republished an article by Gregg Zoroya in USA TODAY under the headline “Army may stop notifying COs of counseling“. In the article, Zoroya reports:

Army leaders are proposing to end a longtime policy that requires a commanding officer be notified when a soldier voluntarily seeks counseling in hopes of encouraging more GIs to seek aid, according to Army Secretary Pete Geren…

The proposal being worked out between Army personnel and medical commanders is “an important part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the stigma associated with seeking mental health care and to encourage more soldiers to seek treatment,” Geren says in a statement to USA TODAY on Friday.

Possibly spurring Secretary Geren and the Army along may have been Senator Claire McCaskill:

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told Geren in a November letter that current Army policies, such as notifying commanders about soldiers seeking help, “seem oriented to disciplinary concerns,” rather than treatment. Geren told McCaskill on Dec. 22 that he is ordering “an immediate and complete review” of ASAP. Suspending the notification rule, he said, could “assure soldiers the program is not punitive.”

It is heartening to learn that Senator McCaskill (the first woman freely elected a senator in Missouri, thus a “ground-breaker”), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee is taking up this issue. It is also encouraging that Secretary Geren has been receptive. But these are just small, incremental steps in the overal process that needs to be pursued in terms of changing the perceptions of and treatment of our PTSD and TBI war casualties. Evidence the fact that in the same article, the Army’s surgeon general, Lt. General Eric Schoomaker has witheld comment:

Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general who urged an end to the policy in October, would not comment. But he is working with Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for Army personnel, to change the policy.

Absent a strong endorsement from General Schoomaker, and absent any evidence of a strong endorsement by other principals in the Army’s command staff, common sense and logic will tell us that without a strong message being driven from the top command level down through the chain of command, little will change. If General Schoomaker is serious about this, he needs to act sooner, rather than later, and decisively.

The second media item that caught my attention this week was the New York Times editorial on January 12, titled “PTSD and the Purple Heart“. In their editorial the Times took the position of supporting the recent decision by the Pentagon to withhold awarding of the Purple Heart to PTSD war casualties. In terms of their position backing the decision by the Pentagon to not recognize PTSD war casualties with the Purple Heart, it seems to me that it is a decision that may be debated and possibly modified as time passes, but not the most urgent issue. The most urgent issue, and which was the most significant point of their editorial was to shed light on the plight of our country’s PTSD war casualties. This is one of the issues with the greatest impact facing military families today, gaining acceptance and recognition, and then appropriate care for our military PTSD war casualties.

Service members who have displayed the symptoms of PTSD are true war casualties, and in other wars and other eras this condition was also present, albeit labeled “battle fatigue” or “shell shock.” Only relatively recently have health care professionals, law makers, and the general public begun to recognize that PTSD is a “real” combat injury, many times catastropic, in both civilian and military life. Unfortunately, it seems that the military services, as institutions, have not yet fully understood this.

Despite growing recognition in the media over the past few years, grass roots efforts lobbying our law makers and military command, PTSD injuries continue to go untreated. Instead, advocates are witnessing careers in which service members have made a lifetime commitment being nullified and families devastated because military commanders frequently choose to kick out PTSD sufferers (for post-deployment misconduct–the very behavior that the Department of Defense’s Mental Health Task Force has identified as being evidence of PTSD is the evidence that commanders use to administratively discharge service members), without benefits of any sort including mental health care, VA administered health care or retirement benefits or any rehabilitative care. In some cases requiring the return of enlistment bonuses.

Untreated PTSD has a societal ripple effect by putting the service member at an increased risk for substance abuse, unemployment, homelessness, criminal activity, partner violence, incarceration, and physical violence–against themselves or others. Appropriate, adequate treatment and rehabilitation for our service members who have suffered PTSD war injuries must be a priority of our military services, the Veterans Administration, our government, our country men and women.

Much more work needs to be done in terms of educating the public at large, our military establishment and our government officials about this issue, and it falls upon all of us, military families, cognizant military and government officials, and cognizant members of the general American public to do this work. No one who is aware of this issue and who wants to see the status quo changed should expect someone else to take up the issue on their behalf. We all have skin in this game as our military family is our last and strongest line of defense to our freedom, and our existence as a sovreign nation.

What members of the active duty military family can do is to spread the word. Educate and advocate with your extended family members, friends, and business associates, ask them to take up this advocacy. Active duty military and their family members also have the right to contact their members of Congress, to raise the Congress’ awareness of this issue, and to put pressure on our elected officials to respond adequately.

The same can be said for the general public, as beneficiaries of the service of our active duty military personnel and their families, it is our moral duty to educate and advocate on their behalf with our own family members, our friends and associates. It is our duty to lobby our members of Congress hard for this issue. It is also only our (members of the American public who are not active duty military personnel and do not have members of our nuclear family serving on active duty) to lobby directly with our military command structure. This is something that military personnel cannot do, for obvious reasons, so this is where we, who may have served in the past, we who are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can speak for our country men and women who are serving us.

All of this represents incremental efforts, which will all lead to incremental change, which as a strategy, I believe has a better chance of being effective than undertaking any effort to demand immediate change. Like water dripping upon a rock, our individual efforts, over time, will break down the current structure, through incremental change.

To find out who your representatives in Congress are (your member of the House of Representatives and your two Senators) visit Congress.org where you can plug in your address and get the contact information, including telephone numbers and addresses for your Congress persons. You can also write and send emails or letters directly from Congress.org to your Congress persons. You can also find the names and addresses of all of the top Pentagon officials at the Defense Department web site.

To learn more about how lives have been impacted by PTSD war casualties please visit Military Spouse Press to read in their own words what military family members have faced. Military Spouses for Change (MSC) is an advocacy organization that is providing pro bono case management services to active duty military personnel and veterans who are PTSD war casualties and they are fighting for their rightful benefits and appropriate care. To learn more about MSC or to give them a heping hand, please visit their website.

Sphere: Related Content

Undermining The First Amendment By Creeping Christian Prostelyzation

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is generally interpreted and generally agreed that the Establishment Clause in the first amendment establishes freedom of religion and also establishes that there shall be no state religion. This interpretation has stood the test of time and in fact, been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

It seems, though, that certain segments of the American public, and certain officials (both government and military) are either not aware of this component of the Bill of Rights, or deliberately choose to ignore it. We have seen examples of this in civil life as government officials, who are first and foremost politicians always pandering to what ever special interests get them elected, enact various rules, policies and laws to intermix matters of religion in to state governance.  This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution and domination, so that its citizens could each, by his own free choice, determine what, if any religious practice he or she would subscribe to.

A great segment of our society seems to have either never learned this lesson of our history, or simply choose to ignore it in their misguided belief that their religion commands them and all other men and women to conform to their one way of life and religion.  They do not understand that no religion that forces its will, or what it believes is its God’s will on the entire human race is something that is sacred, justified or a moral imperative, but rather an unjustified, morally repugnant imposition of their personal will on another human being.  No human being has the right to do that, whether in their God’s name or any other name.

Something that the last eight years should have taught us, and something we may be falling prey to as we move forward in to a new era,  is that the active prostelyzing by any religious group delivered via the offices or channels of government is a recipe for disaster.  Ironically the “War on Terror” is a religious war, started and fomented by religious fundamentalists who would impose their beliefs, their will, upon the rest of the world, believing only in utter conformance to their particular religious and social values.  This is what we have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2003.  Yet our government officials, motivated by their personal desires to retain political power and office and subsequently our military officials, who take their lead or their orders from the politicians, have destroyed our credibility as the world paragon of religious and political freedom.

As told by Jason Leopold at The Public Record in his recent story titled “Military Entangled In ‘Extreme Missionary’ Christian Reality Television Show” our elected, and appointed government and military officials have permitted, in fact seemingly encourage, fundamentalist religious groups to prostelyze their particular religious values to citizens of another country that we occupy.  Does it not occur to any of our government officials that by our forcing our own religious and moral values upon Afghanis we are doing the same thing as the Taliban.  We are making the imposition of our will on other people, whether invited by those people or not, just as Al Qaeda tries to impose their values on the rest of human kind.  How incredibly stupid and short sighted it that?

In his article, Leopold relates how fundamentalist religious groups have succeeded in “embedding” themselves in to military units on station in the war zone:

The popular reality series, “Travel the Road,” aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and featured Will Decker and Tim Scott, two so-called “extreme” missionaries who travel the globe to “preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth and encourage the church to be active in the Great Commission.”

The other cable program green-lit by the Pentagon is “God’s Soldier,” which aired in September on the Military Channel, and was filmed at Forward Operating Base McHenry in Hawijah, Iraq. It features an Army chaplain openly promoting fundamentalist Christianity to active-duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq in violation of the U.S. Constitution…

Part of the second season of “Travel the Road” was filmed on location in Afghanistan and aired in April 2006, where Decker and Scott were embedded with the Army, and shows numerous scenes of the men accompanying U.S. Army soldiers on patrol.  The missionaries are also filmed evangelizing the local Afghans by distributing New Testaments to them in their native Darri language.

In one scene, an Army Chaplain named Capt. Brad Hanna of the Oklahoma National Guard, talks about the possibility of a “revival” in Afghanistan and says he frequently speaks to Afghans about converting to Christianity. Hanna was made a full-time support chaplain for the Oklahoma National Guard after he returned from Afghanistan.

Additionally, Decker and Scott prominently cite SSgt. Sheldon Hoyt, who was stationed in Afghanistan with the Oklahoma National Guard’s 45th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment, as playing a hands-on role in helping the missionaries facilitate their proselytizing as opposed to simply being a tour guide of sorts…

Earlier this year, U.S. military personnel launched a major initiative to convert thousands of Iraqi citizens to Christianity also by distributing Bibles and other fundamentalist Christian literature translated into Arabic to Iraqi Muslims…

The distribution of the Bibles and Christian literature came at the same time that U.S. Marines guarding the entrance to the city of Fallujah handed out “witnessing coins” to Sunni Muslims entering the city that read in Arabic on one side: “Where will you spend eternity?” and “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16″ on the other…

“God’s Soldier” was co-produced by Jerusalem Productions, a British production company whose “primary aim is to increase understanding and knowledge of the Christian religion and to promote Christian values, via the broadcast media, to as wide an audience as possible.”

Before “God’s Soldier” aired on Sept. 10, the Discovery Channel, which owns the Military Channel, advertised the program by stating that it would feature several Army Chaplains from a wide variety of denominations discussing their work in the military.

“Follow a group of U.S. Army Chaplains from different faiths on a tour of duty in Iraq as they comfort wounded and dying soldiers, reassure panicked and depressed soldiers, as well debriefing those soldiers that return from their tours of duty,” the marketing literature for “God’s Soldier” said.

Instead, “God’s Soldier,” zeroed in on one chaplain, Capt.. Charles Popov, who appears in the first scene of the program in a godlike pose looking down upon the military base and urging soldier to attend Christian Bible study. [Astute readers will note that the Popov family name is a familiar one in terms of religious fundamentalists and tent meetings. -B.F.]

“Hey this is God,” Chaplain Popov says. “Come to Bible study tonight at 1900. Purpose Driven Life. You only have 25,000 days in your life, and probably half of it’s gone.”

The author of the book, “Purpose Driven Life,” that Popov referenced is Rick Warren, the leader of a fundamentalist mega-church in Southern California. In a recent interview with Fox News pundit Sean Hannity, Warren said, “the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped…. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.”

For the full context of all of this, Leopold’s full article is a must read.  But don’t stop there, in a follow-up story, Leopold reports that this de facto policy of encouraging prostelyzation may continue in the new administration being sworn in on January 21.  In his story titled “Prostelyzing In the Military Likely To Continue Under Obama”, Leopold relates:

But, now that Obama has decided to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense—and he’s embraced Warren—it is virtually guaranteed that fundamentalist Christianity will continue to permeate throughout the military just as it has during George W. Bush’s eight years in office.

Despite being named in several lawsuits filed against the Pentagon for allowing military chaplains to proselytize to soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the numerous letters he has received  from civil rights organizations and government watchdog groups since he was tapped as Defense Secretary two years ago, letters demanding that he launch investigations into widespread proselytizing, Gates has failed to issue a response of any kind to these groups and has refused to take steps to address the matter. Meanwhile, soldiers continue to have fundamentalist Christianity shoved down their throats.

Of the nearly 11,000 soldiers that have lodged complaints about proselytizing with just one of the various government watchdog groups, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, reports that about 96 percent have identified themselves as Christian, however, there are numerous cases in which atheist and Jewish soldiers have said they were subjected to  Christian prayer sessions and proselytizing by chaplains despite their objections.

This is all terrifying to freedom loving, individual Americans, who rightly fear the establishment of any religion as “the state religion”.  Religion has a place in each individual’s life at a time and a place of each individual’s choosing, but it has no place being forced upon anyone.  The recent brouhaha on these pages about Rick Warren performing an invocation at the presidential inaugural maybe be viewed as a bit over reactive by some, and when it comes down to it, I can ignore that small interlude, as I have done so in similar situations for my entire life, but why should it be foisted on me in the first place during an act of state ceremony, and it does make me fear what else religious extremists might want to force upon me, will I, one day be forced to wear a religious insignia on my clothing, have all of my worldly possessions seized, have my friends and family torn away from me, and find myself marching to a gas chamber, all in service to some one’s skewed belief that their God is God and is the only God?

Sphere: Related Content

Military stays dominant in the field — or not?

Conflicts large and small are going on around the world.  The United States is underrepresented in some of them, and over represented in others.  What is deemed to be in the national security interest will, in all likelihood, change with the Obama administration.  However, just because the United States will have a new president in a couple of months, that does not necessarily mean much will change right away on the war fronts.  The advice of military commanders will be heavily weighted in the decision making until the President gains his confidence and footing. What would happen if the new President and his advisers, with the help of thinkers who have studied jihadis closely and rationally, reevaluated the conventional wisdom about relative terrorist threats around the world, and redeployed our military forces based on new information?

If President-elect Obama sticks to his promise of getting out of Iraq, that may or not mean leaving completely.  Criteria for troop draw-downs will probably depend on the degree of stability at the battlefronts. The definition of “stability” varies widely among the various stakeholders.  It will depend on on the terms of Status of Forces Agreement, and whether a new administration has any flexibility to modify it.  And it depends on what is going on at the benchmark times as they occur, in other words, the conditions on the ground.  The commanders need to be able to withdraw the forces safely, both personnel and materiel.  What if we took the Iraqis at their word that they would just handle whatever happened?  And what if we were to declare victory there and move on to peace-making between the Israelis and Palestinians?

If President-elect Obama sticks to his promise of refocusing U.S. military operations into Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan, that probably means a trip to that theater for a lot of the soldiers, rather than a trip home.  And it is doubtful that war fighting expenditures will go down appreciably in the near future.  What is the new government of Pakistan came to believe that they had better clean up the tribal areas soon, or the United States would do it for them?  What if the United States made an authentic and significant effort to substitute alternative cash crops for Afghan farmers in place of opium poppies?

And what if the balance of power between the influence Defense Department and the State Department with the President were to be adjusted for more soft power and less hard power.  Would Hillary Clinton have the strength and wisdom to make such a fight within the administration?  What if the rejuvination of our longtime alliances meant that there were much better uses of the United Nations and NATO?  What would happen if our new president took a fresh look at Africa, seeing it as a large source of instability and of possibility.  And what if AfriCom were split into the separate elements of military and diplomatic/aid forces, and we put more of our money into non-kinetic helpers and doctors and teachers and aid workers?

If our next president is as good as I think he is, he should be able to energize a new and sophisticated effort to rebalance the relative influence of the military-industrial complex in the direction of smarter, rather that tougher interventions in trouble spots.  What if the United States tried to become a true example of a free and open society, with a strong Middle Class whose children could, once again, hope to do better than their parents?  Who knows what might happen to the millions now consigned to hopelessness around the world.  Do I dream too much?

Sphere: Related Content

The kind of government we want

. . . in Iraq differs, depending on with whom you are having the discussion. The original goal of the neocons was quite clear. They were intent on establishing a democracy as a foothold somewhere in the Middle East. Iraq seemed militarily and strategically easier than Afghanistan. It is now five years later, 4000 American military deaths later, and $541 billion later. And the United States UN mandate to be in Iraq runs out at the end of this year. The deadline set by our current president (OCP) for getting a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the government of Iraq is today, July 31, 2008. With the Iraqi parliament’s failure to reach an agreement on holding provincial elections in the fall, Democracy In Iraq looks a bit in peril. But the SOFA persists. The New York Times story is headlined, “Deal on a Security Agreement Is Close, Iraqis Say.” Alissa Rubin and Steven Myers’ story elaborates on many of the key elements of the SOFA. To quote:

Iraq and the United States are close to a deal on a sensitive security agreement that Iraqi officials said on Wednesday satisfies the nation’s desire to be treated as sovereign and independent.

. . . The emerging agreement, officials said, gives Iraqis much of what they want – most notably the guarantee that there would no longer be foreign troops visible on their land – and leaves room for them to discreetly ask for an extended American presence should security deteriorate.

. . . The Bush administration’s unofficial deadline for the deal has long been July 31. Although the United Nations mandate allowing American troops to operate in Iraq will not expire until the end of the year, politicians in both countries have been concerned that with elections approaching in the United States and Iraq, it might not be possible to reach an agreement once the fall campaign is in full swing and it would be better to finish negotiations during the summer.

. . The authorization for the presence of American troops would be renewable annually so that if conditions worsened or improved, Iraqis could respond to that, according to Ayaed al-Sammaraie, a Sunni leader, and several other Iraqis knowledgeable about the agreement.

“American hubris,” is how my friend, betmo, characterizes this from the link (at Take it Personally) to Tom Friedman’s column in the New York Times. Friedman’s stance fits in quite nicely with (the above) neocon ambitions for the Middle East, unfortunately. One of my gurus, Dr. Marc Sageman, reminded us that Afghanis historically will be more nationalistic than anything else. Friedman obviously is not familiar with “leaderless jihad.” I quote the offending paragraph at the end of these three:

. . . For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”

The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims.

. . . The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.

The kind of government we civil libertarian activists want is one that balances the need for intelligence with the need for Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Just claiming that those protections are included in this so-called overhaul in no way makes it so. In fact the recent work by Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a foolproof recipe for the loss of those protections. “Bush Orders Intelligence Overhaul,” is today’s NYT (7/31/08) headline. I paid close attention to this story for hints about how it will affect the kind of government civil libertarians want. To quote what seems to pertain from the article:

. . . an executive order that revises the rules for intelligence agencies and strengthens the authority of the national intelligence director . . . according to a power point briefing given to Congress that was reviewed by The Associated Press.

. . . The new order gives the national intelligence director, a position created in 2005, new authority over any intelligence information collected that pertains to more than one agency — an attempt to force greater information exchange among agencies traditionally reluctant to share their most prized intelligence. The order directs the attorney general to develop guidelines to allow agencies access to information held by other agencies. That could potentially include the sharing of sensitive information about Americans.

. . . The order has been under revision for more than a year, an attempt to update a nearly 30-year-old presidential order to reflect organizational changes made in the intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was carried on in secret in the midst of pitched national debate about the appropriate balance between civil liberties and security, spurred by the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. The briefing charts assert that the new order maintains or improves civil liberties protections for Americans.

The order also gives the national intelligence director’s office the power of the purse: . . . It did not explain the FBI’s domestic intelligence mission, which has gotten increasing attention since 9/11.”The executive order maintains and strengthens existing protections for Americans’ civil liberties and privacy rights,” Perino said Thursday.

Is this, too, hubris? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a recently headlined statement, was not addressing the questions raised by her mass abandonment of civil liberties in the eventual FISA bill revision. Pelosi’s statement about the energy crisis leaves a bitter and ironic taste in the mouths of many of us including this articulate minister. “Save the planet? How about saving the Republic?,” by Chuck Baldwin at News With Views.com, July 30, 2008. To quote more extensively than normal from his essay (hoping the author will not mind too much):

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.” She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a “democracy.” That’s odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a “democracy” in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

. . . The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America’s founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost.

. . . What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

. . . Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is “We the people.”

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to “throw off” any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done.

. . . Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin’s answer: “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3) Today’s post takes a look at recent news with an eye to the hypocrisy of U.S. leaders who ignore the loss of democracy in the last 8 years, while persisting in imposing “democratic” occupation in Iraq, while neglecting the more crucial terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda’s bases on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The kind of government we want is one that cares more about its own people than the neocon adventurist agenda, one that does not spy on its own people, and one that rewards politicians for statesmanship rather than the acquision and maintenance of political power. Dare I dream?

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics middle east domestic surveillance civil liberties iraq afghanistan friedamn pelosi

Sphere: Related Content

An Open Letter To Barack Obama: Military & Veterans Want To Hear From You

Senator Obama:

On August 11 of this year the 2008 Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium is planning to host a non-partisan town hall event and while John McCain has agreed to participate in this televised event, you have not committed to participate.

As a committed Barack Obama supporter, and a Viet Nam era veteran, I implore you and your campaign staff and advisers to reconsider your decision to decline to participate in the non-partisan, town hall forum, to be presented by the 2008 Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium on August 11.  I don’t know the reasons why you are declining to participate in this event, but I can assure you, that despite the fact that this event would occur in a military community with a majority in-house military audience, politically speaking, the audience will encompass a broad spectrum of political ideologies, however, my understanding is that the primary “mission” of the town hall forum is not political debate, but discussion that would lead to greater awareness of the health and welfare issues facing those who serve in our military forces, and an opportunity for each candidate to outline his strategic plans in this regard.

I know that you, Senator Obama was a sponsor of S.1817 and are concerned about the care and support our country is providing to those who have volunteered to serve our nation, and by participating in this forum you can further demonstrate your commitment to be a future commander-in-chief that will exercise compassion and good judgment in your management of our military forces, and your support of those who have served in the past.

From your speech on July 15, it is apparent that if you are elected president, you will move to end the folly of our engagement in Iraq, but will also reinforce our military presence in Afghanistan, for obvious, and logical reasons.  It is only logical then, that Senator Obama, in the short time leading up to the national elections and the sitting of a new administration in 2009, you would be open and amendable to hearing directly from those Americans who will be serving at under your command, on critical, dangerous missions.

If your staff has lost your invitation to this important discussion, you can make contact here for the details: Military Spouses for Change.

Respectfully,

-Big Fella

(USN 1975-1966)

Update 17-Jul-09

This letter has been emailed to the Obama campaign, but with no response, you can lend a hand by calling or sending a fax to Senator Obama’s office and ask him to participate in this town hall meeting:

Washington:
Phone: (202) 224-2854
Fax: (202) 228-4260

Chicago:
Phone: (312) 886-3506
Fax: (312) 886-3514

Update 18-Jul-09

One of the sponsoring organizations (there is a whole coalition of organizations) for the Fort Hood Town Hall meeting is The Brain Injury Association of America, and they have any easy to use form at their web site that will generate an email to the Obama campaign for anyone who would like to lobby Obama to listen to and talk to our military and veterans: http://capwiz.com/bia/issues/alert/?alertid=11644406

You can also call the Obama campaign at (866) 675-2008.

Sphere: Related Content

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired

The announcement that Bush made, yesterday, in regards to troop deployments being shortened to 12 months from 15 months was welcome news to many. But, it was sort of depressing news for SSG Dizzy and me.

We had been discussing it for a few days because he had heard a rumor about the announcement that Bush made, but from what he was telling me, they thought that this new announcement would affect them in a positive way, namely, their deployments would be shortened, as well. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Information is subject to change.

 

Fortunate Son~ Creedence Clearwater Revival”Information is subject to change”.

That is what is written in the teeny, tiny fine print on the latest piece of Army recruitment crap to, this time, arrive in our mailbox. A few weeks ago I posted a piece “Death via in box”, talking about the Patriot Act e mail access the recruiters are given for College students. The recruitment push is relentless. This piece could be called “Death via Mailbox”.

I want to draw attention to the actual military enlistment contract itself. Section 9 (the fine print on the back of the enlistment contract agreement).

9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES: Many laws, regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct and require me to do things a civilian does not have to do. The following statements are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

28 retired generals want an end to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

With the 14th anniversary of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” upon us, 28 retired generals and admirals are releasing a joint statement that condemns’ the practice according to the NY Times this morning. This couldn’t be better timing in my humble opinion. Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the ridiculous policy was adopted,now argues for its repeal as well. From the NYT writeup:

“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”

The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.

The letter’s release comes as rallies are scheduled on the Mall by groups calling for a change in the law, which is known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” because it bars the military from investigating soldiers’ sexual orientation if they keep it to themselves.

The only thing I wish to add is this: If they can die for our country, they sure as hell can come out of the friggin closet you homophobic s.o.b.’s.

Sphere: Related Content

tuesday post for peace

democratically elected prime minister al-maliki told reporters recently that america can leave iraq anytime now. poll after poll of the iraqi people tells the same story- they want us to leave their country. americans want america to leave iraq. greed is not a good reason to stay at war, but i have a feeling that’s why we are still there years after being lied to by bushco. why else would we continue to stoke fires of animosity and hatred by being an occupying force? make no mistake, we are there as an occupying force. why else would we spend billions of dollars on constructing military bases and a fortress embassy compound in iraq? these buildings are built to last.

make no mistake, the current american regime- bushco and the corporate elite- are not interested in peace in iraq. they are not interested in anything other than profits now and profits in the future. there’s a reason that halliburton moved to dubai. we, the people, cannot trust our government to do the right thing. we cannot trust them to make decisions that are in our best interest as a nation or as a part of the greater world. they are clearly out for themselves.

now is the time to fight harder to take back our country. we have unleashed a civil war in iraq, and there is no way to ever make amends- although we should spend our lives making the attempt. we have to be the peace that we seek and we have to fight for peace- as oxymoronic as that sounds. if we don’t, thousands more iraqi civilians will die and/or be displaced. thousands of kurds will be killed or displaced by possible impending war with turkey. we have to care- because it is obvious that our fellow americans- the people in government- do not. peace in our time is possible- if we work together.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content