Commonwealth Citizen Soldiers - Hooah

The Associated Press reports the Virginia Army National Guard is at the highest troop levels in 14 years. Despite more than five years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, frequent deployments, and significant casualties, citizen soldiers of the Commonwealth of Virginia are signing up in record numbers for the Virginia National Guard. To all that have answered the call of their State now or in the past, Hooah.
Read More. . . .

Mrs. Obama, I am Proud to be an American

I don’t know about Michelle Obama, but I am proud to be an American. We just blew up a freaking satellite yesterday! We unintentionally just sent a message to the world that we are still the most powerful nation in the world.

I just think that is kind of cool! Read More. . . .

What Does an Arkansas Governor Know About Foreign Affairs?

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, discussing the broad points of his national security plan, should he be elected President. Given his surge towards the top of the polls for the Republican Presidential primaries, it seems important to take a close look at what Governor Huckabee wrote.

The United States faces a serious challenge in dealing with Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf is our sometimes friend and is occasionally useful, but we cannot count on him to take care of all the grave threats coming out of that country. Al Qaeda is operating out of the Pakistani side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with relative impunity. Governor Huckabee was correct when he wrote:

Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan. As commander in chief, the U.S. president must balance threats and risks in calculating how best to protect the American people. We are living on borrowed time. The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.

We cannot allow the Waziristan region of Pakistan to become the new Afghanistan, where al Qaeda can train, plan, and operate in safety. Huckabee is right about the severity of the threat there. Huckabee is also correct that Musharraf is not looking out for the U.S. but only helps us out when it helps his own physical and political survival. I question Huckabee’s apparent belief that the top priority for financial aid to Pakistan should be "projects that alleviate poverty." Poverty is not really the cause of Muslim extremism, and I doubt that all such programs are effective. Foreign aid projects to alleviate poverty need to be monitored for effectiveness – both their effectiveness in combatting poverty and the real effect of reducing poverty on reducing the threat of terrorism. Foreign financial aid to any country can only justify the expense of American tax dollars if it makes the U.S. more secure. If alleviating poverty in Pakistan serves that purpose, then I'm all for it, but there are plenty of Muslim extremists already in Pakistan that will not be converted by anti-poverty programs. The first priority needs to be destroying those enemy forces who are killing Americans in Afghanistan and plotting to attack the U.S. if possible.

Fellow contributor to this site Cominius has wisely noted to me that going after Taliban and al Qaeda forces inside Pakistan’s borders could weaken Musharraf’s political support inside Pakistan and lead to an even less supportive government in that country. However, it is unacceptable to allow any government to remain in power in Pakistan or any other country that would allow terrorist safe havens in its territory. Few people an home or abroad objected to our invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from power, because that government allowed al Qaeda terrorists to train and operate out of their country. We cannot now permit the Waziristan region of Pakistan to become the new Afghanistan.

Huckabee is probably right that our Islamic Fundamentalist enemy needs to be better explained to the American people, if we are to sustain this fight against Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. President Bush does what he believes is right, but doesn't always seem to think it necessary to explain what he is doing to the American people. If we are to continue to fight this enemy, public support will be necessary. It is important to have a leader who can communicate the dangers we face and his plan to combat that threat.

Huckabee is accurate in observing that our dependence on oil hinders our ability to contain Islamic Fundamentalism. Our support for repressive regimes is fodder for any Middle Eastern leader looking to make an enemy of the U.S., but we are stuck supporting those regimes in order to maintain our energy supply. Huckabee is right to caution that when promoting democracy, "It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win." In fact, our goal should not be promoting democracy, but promoting freedom. Uncontrolled majority rule is not the American tradition and is not at all desirable for any country. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, by Fareed Zakaria, does a good job discussing transitions to democracy and the conditions under which they work best.

Governor Huckabee is correct to say that the planned increase in the size of the Army and Marines should be done in half the time proposed by the Bush administration. In fact, Huckabee's proposed increase of 92,000 troops in two to three years may still not be ambitious enough to maintain an adequately strong fighting force. The Army has been stretched too thin for several years already, and the effects are bad and getting worse. There is no pleasant solution to this problem, but at least Huckabee seems to recognize that there is a problem. This problem has been exacerbated by the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and the fact that we have been engaged in the War on Terrorism already for over five years without having taken the steps necessary to build a wartime military. These challenges will make any solution unpleasant and expensive, but that gives us all the more reason to seek out a strong leader who recognizes the magnitude of the problems facing our military.

Governor Huckabee is right not to propose any major change of course from what is being done in Iraq now. At this point, we are finally seeing some significant progress and cause for hope there. General Petraeus seems to be achieving remarkable results over the last year, and we should follow through on those results to try to turn them into long term success. As discussed above, changes need to happen in how we manage our military personnel and equipment during wartime to ensure that we maintain a high level of readiness, but now is not the time to give up in Iraq.

Iran is a complex issue, but Huckabee's proposal seems reasonable enough. Some of the elements of what he wrote are a bit outdated, given the recent NIE stating that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, but I think that we should still keep watching Iran to make sure things stay that way. I do not trust Iran and am confident that they would build or acquire nuclear weapons if given the opportunity. We cannot allow them such an opportunity.
Governor Huckabee’s foreign policy proposals raise some important issues, and overall he seems to have a good grasp of threats currently facing this country.

The article in Foreign Affairs is not comprehensive in its coverage of American foreign policy issues. Many more questions remain for Governor Huckabee to answer before he is ready to be President, but he does prove in this article that he is willing to ask tough questions and look for new solutions to challenging problems facing this country. I hope that he will continue to expound on his plan for combatting al Qaeda and dealing with Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq. I also look forward to hearing how he proposes to deal with other regions of the world, including Russia, South America, and China. The United States faces a wide array of challenging diplomatic relationships around the globe which a Presidential hopeful must be ready to face.

Read More. . . .

Clinton Plants Homosexual Question in GOP Debate

Anderson Cooper reports that the openly Gay Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who CNN allowed to grandstand in person during the Republican Youtube Debate, was actually appointed by Senator Clinton to a LGBT Americans Steering Committee for her Presidential campaign earlier this year. See here. Clinton not only planted questions for her press conferences but apparently she is planting them in the Republican Debate too.

This is huge.

Update:
CNN may claim that they didn’t know anything about Kerr, but they’d be wrong. CNN in fact conducted an interview with him back in 2003 about his staunch opposition to gays in the military. See here. Read More. . . .

Feingold, Reid, Leahy, Kerry et al attempt to defund the War, Webb votes No.

The Senate considered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for 2008 submitted by Senator Feingold which would limit the use of funds appropriated to the Armed Forces in Iraq. The clerk of the Senate reports this amendment failed on a 28 to 68 vote with 4 not voting, Senator Webb voting with the majority, Senator Warner not voting.

Although an attempt to defund the war, this amendment if adopted would have created lots of mischief. Let's examine.

Here is the text of the Feingold amendment.

Sec. 8107. (a) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.

(b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the following, as authorized by law:

(1) To conduct operations against al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure.

(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.

First, please not that the restrictions proposed by the amendment would become effective only on June 30, 2008. Since the appropriation bill itself expires on September 30, 2008, the restrictions would be effective only for 90 days of the fiscal year.

Paragraph (1) limits funding to operations against al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations. This is a lawyer's dream and a soldier's nightmare. Each operation would have to be vetted to be sure it was against al Qaeda. Then the intelligence that said the target was al Qaeda would have to be vetted to see if it was substantial enough. If not exactly an operation against al Qaeda, the "affiliated terrorist organization" would have to be vetted for degree of affiliation like a written affiliation agreement, jointly issued membership cards, press statements claiming affiliation, or a check of a listing on al Qaeda's web site for officially affiliated groups.

Paragraph (2) limits funding to "provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure." That definition would exclude using the funds for food, uniforms, maintenance, equipment, supplies or repair parts. In effect the limiting the funds this way would not provide security at all.

Similarly paragraph (3) allowing funds for training of the Iraqi Security Forces would also exclude anything but training such as supplies, equipment, food, uniforms, or repairs. Since security forces is undefined it might or might not include Sunni militias currently fight al Qaeda, peshmerga regular or irregular forces, local police, and others.

The final paragraph to provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security would also exclude food, clothing, equipment, fuel and supplies, except for maybe items like safety goggles, ear plugs and gloves.

Bottom line: Although couched in terms of limiting the mission to specifics, it would end all missions even those listed as to be continued. Another badly crafted proposal from the world's greatest deliberative body. Senator Webb should be commended for his vote against.

Read More. . . .

Webb moves to extend current troop deployments indefinately

UPDATED

I previously noted a Virginia Beach Dems report that Senator Webb would introduce a modified version of his back door approach to ending Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He is attempting to end U.S. involvement by tying up any new troop deployments in interminable bureaucracy. As I previously reported here on August 8, Senator Webb has been trying, in the name of rest for the troops, to create restrictions on troop deployment that would effectively prevent the deployment of any troops to either conflict. The end result of his legislation, if passed, would be to leave the troops presently deployed there for the duration of the conflict or until the authorization bill expires a year from now, or bring all the current troops home without replacement when their tours expire. My interpretation was confirmed by Secretary Gates in the Sunday edition of the Baltimore Sun.

The 2008 Defense Authorization Act is again on the Senate calendar for Wednesday 9/19. I previously noted that the curiousness of this legislation since, a) it would expire with the authorization bill itself, b) would only apply to the operations while they retained their current names, c) and while providing more rest time for the troops home now, would extend the deployments of the troops engaged without relief.

The current Act expires in 11 days. Even if passed, the bill will still have to go to conference and be passed by the House before going to the White House. This will leave the troops without funding support unless a continuing resolution is passed. When Senator Webb last brought up his amendment, he could not collect the 60 votes needed to end debate. It is likely the President would veto an Authorization Act with such an amendment.If the bill is vetoed he would need a highly unlikely 67 votes to override the veto.

This is either political, if useless, grandstanding, or if serious, a bill which would be monstrously damaging to the troops now deployed. One would wish better of a Virginia senator.

UPDATE: The text of the revised amendment is now available and Vivian Paige has a link.
Except for a longer preamble with increased glurge, the amendment itself appears little changed. There were two additional curious points.

First Webb states the all-volunteer force is bearing a disproportionate share of the national wartime sacrifice. I am not sure what other force he thinks is available to do the fighting and the dying besides the current all-volunteer force. Is he proposing re instituting the draft? Is there some secret non-volunteer force he is hiding somewhere?

Second the Webb amendment limits deployment to Units and members who have been home twice as long as they were deployed. But as written a unit, even with no members who participated in the previous deployment and were all home the required period to time would be required to stay at home until the "unit", whatever that is since it is not defined, had been home twice as long as it had been deployed.

Bad legislation made worse. Read More. . . .

Webb's Deployment Limits Bill Resurrected in House

Jim Webb's bill to keep troops at home longer between deployments was withdrawn when the votes to end debate could not be garnered. A somewhat similar bill was passed by the House August 2nd. I previously analyzed the Webb bill as bad legislation in an earlier post. Seems only fair to skewer the resurrected bill as well and point out its unconstitutional nature.

Ellen Taucher (D-CA10) introduced HR 3159 "Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007. The bill passed the House by a 229 to 194 vote.

The votes of the Virginia delegation were:

Davis, Jo Ann S., R- 1st Not voting
Drake, Thelma D., R- 2nd Nay
Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", D-, 3rd Aye
Forbes, J. Randy, R-, 4th Nay
Goode Jr., Virgil H., R-, 5th Nay
Goodlatte, Bob, R-, 6th Nay
Cantor, Eric, R-, 7th Nay
Moran, Jim, D-, 8th Yea
Boucher, Rick, D-, 9th Yea
Wolf, Frank, R-, 10th Nay
Davis, Tom, R-V, 11th Nay

The Tauscher bill, unlike Webb's original which included Operation Enduring Freedom, further limits its application to just Operation Iraqi Freedom. It also conflates units and individuals into the same definition but goes on to limit unit deployments. Since this is not an amendment to the authorization bill, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President (somewhat unlikely), it would be permanent law, not expiring with the authorization.

One of my objections here is that the bill is targeted only at the current operations in Iraq. If we are serious about ensuring the deployment fit and rested military personnel to combat why limit the concern to Iraq (or Iraq and Afghanistan as Webb proposed)?

No amendments were offered by our delegation or others to address these points.

Secondly, the bill could easily be mooted by renaming the Operation. Given the attacks on the 'evil' nature of the Bush administration, I doubt some Democrats would see this simple expedient as being beyond the administration.

But finally and most importantly I believe such a bill is unconstitutional. The Congress has the power to declare war. The Congress has the power to raise an Army. The constitution did not give the Congress the power to decide which soldier moves from which place to which place and when.

Thelma Drake made the argument cogently in her floor speech during the debate:

I will make this statement, that the Constitution grants Congress the
power to do three things with regard to war: One of them is to declare it, and that is clear; the second one is to raise an Army and a Navy and, by implication, an Air Force, and that is clear; and the third thing is to fund it. But there is nothing in this Constitution that says that we have the authority to overrule the Commander in Chief, nor to micromanage a war. Nor are there any 535 generals that are somehow or another empowered within article I or any other article of the Constitution it.

So when the gentleman says that it is a constitutional responsibility of Congress to conduct foreign policy, I would ask, where in this Constitution do you find that? I find that all vested in the powers of the President, where he appoints ambassadors, he sets foreign policy. Yes, with the advice and consent of the Senate on the confirmation, but it is the President's foreign policy, it is the President's State Department, and it is the President's military to command.

When we deviate from that, we put ourselves in the condition where our Continental Army was back before we established this Constitution. They knew what was wrong. The Continental Congress was trying to fight a war by consensus, and that is why we have a Commander in Chief, and we must adhere to that.

If you really want to give some rest to these troops, don't tell the President what he has to do. He is doing all he can to give our troops all the rest he can.

I just came back from there. Expand this standing, active duty military so that they can get some rest. Don't pull them out of the field. And if you are sincere about this, don't limit it to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Expand this globally. If you really mean it, they get tired wherever they are, in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they happen to be on the globe.

The President knows that. He cares about these troops. I looked him in the eye last week. He is doing everything he can. Everyone is a volunteer, and everyone is a volunteer not just for the military but for this mission. And you cannot separate your support for the troops from support of the mission. You must support their mission. If you are going to ask them to put their lives on the line for us, then you stand for their mission. The least we can do is wait for General Petraeus' report.

Regardless of the merits of reducing troops recycling to combat, this is sloppy unconstitutional legislation at best and more likely vacuous political grandstanding. Representatives Boucher, Moran and Scott owe us more than that.
Read More. . . .

Senator Webb's Curious Legislating

With the Congress at last in adjournment, I have had the chance to reread the amendment Senator Webb introduced on July 9 to specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

While the amendment (Original hand marked copy here) was withdrawn on July 11 for failure to obtain cloture, there are some curious aspects of the amendment which are worth considering.

The first curiosity is implied in the stated purpose of the amendment itself. If one wanted to ensure the rest and recuperation of members of the Armed Forces following combat operations would it be appropriate to limit the application of this concern to just two current military operations. Why not to all combat operations. Why to only combat operations taking place now. Why make the amendment to the authorization bill where it will expire instead a more permanent fix. Perhaps the answer to these questions lie in just our freshman Senator's limited experience in the Senate and time constraints.

The second curious aspect is the focus of the bill to specifically named operations. Military operations are just that, operations named by the military. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are the current names for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be incredibly easy for the administration to moot the effect of this bill altogether by simply renaming the operations. Change Operation Iraqi Freedom into Operations Iraqi Liberty and presto, no restrictions.

Perhaps Senators Webb's limited experience also explains short sightedness over the ease of negating his amendment's restrictions. That's just my explanation. I could be wrong.

Read More. . . .

Support Our Troops

Every politician wants to prove that he or she supports the troops. In recent months, "supporting the troops" seems to consist of Republicans wanting to keep doing exactly what we've been doing in Iraq and Democrats wanting to just give up the fight so all the troops can go home. I do not claim to speak for all the troops, but as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I think I can speak a little bit to some of the support from political and military leaders that our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan would find helpful.


First of all, let's clarify the mission. I want the President, the Secretary of Defense, and even Congress to be very clear about what we need to accomplish in these fights and what resources of personnel and equipment will be required to accomplish that. I would also like to see a logical, if somewhat inexact, timeline laid out for what we plan to accomplish when, what role our Soldiers and Marines will be taking at various stages in the transfer of control to Iraqis, and how we plan to be able to reduce troop strength while still maintaining gains made. Much of the reason public support for OIF is so low is because the administration and even military leaders have consistently given the false impression that we were just a few months from being able to reduce troop presence in Iraq. Each time that has proven to not be the case, support has gone down. As public support goes down, the likelihood that the U.S. will have the political fortitude to fight in Iraq to a successful conclusion diminishes. The Soldiers and Marines know this, and it makes them concerned that they may be fighting with little hope of long-term success.

Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Right now, Army units are deploying for fifteen months at a time and only getting a year between deployments. The Marines are deploying for less time, but also have less time between deployments. This ratio of time deployed to time at home station, still busy training and preparing for the next deployment, proves that the Army is still undermanned six years into the Global War on Terrorism. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, proposed an amendment to require a minimum time at home station equal to the length of a servicemember's or unit's previous deployment. Although the Webb amendment would have some troubling effects, as noted by Chuck Young, its intent is legitimately supportive of our nation's warriors. The real problem is that the Bush administration has been using the men and women of the Army and Marines to such excess that legislative action would be necessary to make sure that they get adequate time at home to recuperate, spend time with family and friends, and train and prepare for the next mission. You may have to "go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," but this war has been going on for well over four years now. It is long past time that we have the Army we need to successfully wage this fight.

Ensure that our servicemembers and veterans receive top-quality medical care. We heard about the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few months ago. There is no excuse for wounded veterans receiving sub-par care. This country asked these men and women to put their lives at risk. We owe it to them to take the best care possible of them when they are wounded.

Do not charge mid-tour leave against Soldiers. During year-long deployments, members of the Army receive a 15-day period of leave. Recently, the mid-tour leave was extended to 18 days, due to the fact that tours have been extended for all units to 15 months. However, those periods of leave count as charged leave days. These Soldiers work 7 days a week in a combat zone, many for twelve to eighteen hours daily, but the Army still counts as normal vacation days the only fifteen or eighteen days off that the Soldier gets all year. Remember, if you work five days a week, without even getting holidays off, you get 104 uncharged days off each year. Our deployed Soldiers don't even get fifteen. That should be remedied now

Cease adding demands on people who have already fulfilled their military obligations. The Immediate Ready Reserve (IRR) is made up of former military who no longer ever put on a uniform. They fulfilled their active obligation and are not a part of the Reserves or National Guard. They are civilians with previous military experience. In recent years, the Army has called up thousands of members of the IRR to fill deploying units. Additionally, the Army continues to regularly use "stop-loss" and "stop-movement" to keep deploying units filled, even now that we are over four years into the war in Iraq. Stop-movement means that Soldiers are unable to make their next career move because they cannot leave a unit that is about to deploy. The consistent use of this policy throws careers off track, preventing people from getting the training or positions they need to be able to get promoted or move to a preferred career field. Stop-loss prevents Soldiers who have fulfilled their active duty service obligation from being able to move on to their civilian careers. The continued use of this policy stretches the definition of an "all-volunteer Army" and proves that the Army has serious problems filling its human resources requirements. Stop-loss of Army veterans is the most glaring evidence of the Bush administration's willingness to heap the burden of this fight on a small number of patriots while asking almost nothing of most Americans. If our political leaders take the steps necessary, however costly, to increase the size of the military, as I recommended earlier, then the Army should be able to stop using stop-loss and stop-movement.

Please join me in making "Support Our Troops" more than a slogan. Send packages and letters to deployed servicemembers. When you see someone in the military, express your pride and support for what they do. Most importantly, hold your elected representatives accountable for how they treat members of the Armed Forces.