How many ways can one shaft America’s veterans? Let me count the ways. 

First, when on active duty send them to fight in a war that need never have been fought. Second, after deploying them to a combat zone increase the odds of their being wounded or killed by providing inadequate or non-existent equipment such as lack of properly armored vehicles or no body armor. Third, increase the odds against them by failing to promptly recognize new threats such as improvised explosive devices. Fourth, after they have been wounded give them a lack of proper facilities in which to recover, as evidenced by the Walter Reed scandal. Fifth, be inexplicably slow to recognize or screen for, let alone treat, neurological injuries from bomb blasts, which have become the war’s signature injury. Sixth, due to an inadequate military mental health system, fail to recognize increased suicidal tendencies on the part of returning veterans. These, by the way, are not all the ways I could list. 

And, if all that isn’t enough to screw veterans who just want to get on with their life and rejoin the society they fought for, one can always screw them over by providing inadequate educational benefits. 

Which brings us to what should be a bipartisan no-brainer, but sadly, isn’t. As Henny Youngman would say, take my GI Bill, please. That venerable institution, dating back to the WWII era has been modified numerous times over the years.

When I did my undergraduate work at the end of 70s and early 80s it was very helpful, but hardly sufficient. Since then, its relative contribution, as a percentage of overall educational costs has declined.

If a veteran is lucky he or she may get enough to cover about 60% of the costs of the average four-year public college. Currently, active-duty members who have continuously served for at least two years, and who forfeit $1,200 of their pay in one year, are entitled to receive $1,101 a month as a full-time student for up to 36 months, which is equivalent to four academic years. (more…)

I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. That was my reaction to reading yesterday’s New York Times article on the use of retired military officers to help generate favorable spin for the Bush administration’s performance. Evidently, the administration believes that with enough retired brass one can turn a lemon into lemonade.

The New York Times considered this issue to be important, as evidenced by the fact that the front page, above the fold, article ran over 7500 words. And it is, though not necessarily for the reason it thinks. In fact, the article is both less and more than one might think.

It is less because the fact is that retired generals and admirals have long been available for rent as ideological water boys. It has long been one of Washington’s worst kept secrets. Retired flag rank officers are like professional athletes. Once they are no longer fit for the playing field it is not as if they are fit for many other professions.

Aside from opening restaurants or bars a retired athlete generally gets a job somewhere in the sports industry. And once an officer is retired his or her career choices are similarly limited. Generally they find work somewhere within the expanses of the military industrial complex, which nowadays, goes far beyond industry. It also includes large parts of academia, and the think tank world. In the past they normally went to work for the normal hardware contractors, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and the like. But with the rise of an always on media universe such officers have increasingly been used as the demand for so called ‘experts” has risen exponentially. If the Blackwaters and Dyncorps of the world can be considered Private Military Companies available for hire, such officers can be considered a different PMC; Private Media Contractors. (more…)

There’s been a lot of talk about whether the U.S. President should boycott the Olympics because of Chinese human rights concerns. The irony is that in the eyes of much of the world, it may not mean very much if we took such a bold action. Studies indicate that the U.S. under George W. Bush has a less favorable image than China. And it’s hard to imagine that many people could take Bush seriously when he talks about human rights in China, after he has condoned waterboarding practices that clearly violate international human rights protocols.

Even in an ideal world, I’m not sure that a boycott is the most effective way to influence China’s deeply concerning human rights record. After all, Nixon’s trip to China was arguably the most impactful U.S. act in shaping China’s future and Nixon went there more in friendship than in protest. At the same time, he delivered a clear message. Similarly, I tend to think America should fully participate in the Olympics while wearing a clear symbol of our support of human rights and making clear our hope that China will change its ways.

What’s sad, though, is that our country, which for so long has been an image of freedom despite all our shortcomings and our continued inequities, is now seen so negatively worldwide that it is not clear even if we tried to make a statement anyone would take us seriously. It is yet another sign of one of the great casualties of the Bush years: America’s image in the world.

Hmm, flowers are blooming, cherry blossoms emerged; it can only mean one thing. Yes, that’s right, it’s time once again for the semi-annual Congressional circus show, also known as putting lipstick on the pig, starring Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. This morning these gentlemen will testify before Congress on the state of affairs in Iraq and what the chances of success are for the U.S. there. Of course, nobody knows what constitutes “success” but even so it is a daunting prospect.

As Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote yesterday, “the risks in Iraq remain high enough so that no one can yet say whether the odds of any kind of US success are better than even.” Of course Cordesman is hardly a proponent of withdrawing U.S. forces any time soon, which is why his next sentence was so revealing. “The fact remains, however, that there is still a marginally better case for staying than for leaving.” When respected analysts like Cordesman state that the case for staying is only “marginally better” than leaving you know that the United States has problems.

Of course, nobody expects this carefully scripted event to have serious questions or sincere answers if, for not other reason, than the hearing will be attended by Sens. Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Republicans will seek to defend the Bush Administration’s stay the course policy. As senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces.” Well, actually I could, but that would take another article. Democrats will just as fervently use it to make the case for withdrawing troops. (more…)

This week I’d like to highlight a very thought provoking op-ed by Rudy Deleon and Bryan Thomas that revisits the issue of a war surtax.  As many may remember, this was proposed by Rep David Obey back in October of last year.  The Democratic leadership was against it as were most Republicans.  I think, however, that it merits further consideration, particularly as the war continues to drag on. I agree with the authors that as Congress begins to consider the future of Bush’s tax cuts, they should reconsider this proposal.  My feeling, though, is that it will only happen if done on a bipartisan basis. 

I have written in many previous blog posts about my frustration with this administration related to its reluctance to ask Americans to sacrifice anything for this war.  This is the first major conflict of this century where Americans have been asked to make no economic sacrifice.  The number of Americans who are negatively affected by this war is actually quite small.  Granted, those that have been affected, have been in the most profound manner. 

Here are my back of the envelope calculations:  so far there have been 4010 US soldiers killed in Iraq.  Roughly 30,000 have been wounded.  The average household size in the US is 2.6 people.  So, at a very basic level, we can estimate that 88,426 people (soldiers plus their immediate families) have been affected in the most dramatic way by the war (30,000+4010 x 2.6).  If we add in the number of troops stationed in Iraq (158,000), we can estimate that there are another 410,000 (158,000 x 2.6) people that are affected less dramatically, but still very deeply.  So, just by these back of the envelope estimates looking just at soldiers and immediate family members, only about 498,426 Americans have been significantly impacted by the war.  Half a million out of a population of 300 million is just a drop in the bucket. And this is exactly how the Bush administration has been able to maintain our presence in Iraq. 

By only having a small portion of the population make any sacrifice, they have been able to limit the sort of public outrage that we saw in Vietnam when thousands were drafted.  Granted, according to polling, public opinion remains opposed to continued engagement in Iraq, yet it is still not strong enough to pressure enough of Congress to force Bush’s hand.  (more…)

It is always somewhat artificial, frequently absurd, and sometimes outright grotesque, whenever the media commemorates, however briefly, an anniversary of something. Some things can be more or less justified, i.e., Armistice Day, end of World War II, 911 attacks, etcetera.

But the 4000^th American to die in Iraq? Give us a break. First, why is number 4000 more important than 3999 or 4001?

More importantly if we are talking about Americans why not include those who worked for private military and security contractors. They may not have been soldiers but they served their country. Bear in mind that the military deliberately involved the private sector in its logistics support via its Logistics Civil Augmentation (LOGCAP) program so KBR truck drivers are as much a part of the war effort as an Army quartermaster. If we include them we reached 4000 at least a year ago.

And if the measure of the Iraq War is casualties why do we not include Iraqis? Doubtlessly Iraqis wish that the sum total of fatalities they suffered since the U.S. invaded in 2003 was only 4000. When you figure in direct and indirect deaths, resulting from violence, disease, destroyed infrastructure their total is far beyond ten times that figure. It may even approach one hundred times that.

Let’s also not forget the military forces of other coalition nations in Iraq whose soldiers have died in Iraq. (more…)

Well, I was going to blog about the resignation of Adm. Fallon but as Raj Purohit and Eugene Gholz have already done so I think three would be a crowd so I will refrain.

Besides I think Fallon’s resignation has a lot less to do with Iran and more, as Fred Kaplan in Slate notes, to do with Iraq.

So let’s turn to Iraq and dwell on those items that may have flown below your radar.

First, and sadly, because I really, really, like the PBS show The Newshour with Jim Lehrer there was a journalistic lapse in the March 11 show when he discussed the “surge.” One of his guests was Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and more importantly, the author of the surge strategy, currently being implemented in Iraq.

Jim Lehrer never mentioned this which is inexcusable when you ask questions like this:

Mr. Kagan, to you first. You agree with the president that the surge has been successful, correct?

FREDERICK KAGAN, American Enterprise Institute: Absolutely.

What was more interesting was this comment from the other guest, Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security, and someone who spent more than two years in Iraq reporting on the Coalition occupationand, and Iraqi sectarian violence.

But what’s really frightening is that, indeed, when that sectarian fighting will resume — and it will — there’s going to be nowhere to run to, because Syria and Jordan have closed their borders to Iraqi refugees; 11 of Iraq’s 18 governors have closed their borders to internally displaced Iraqis. So when the fighting resumes intensively, it’s going to be a slaughter.

(more…)

Admiral Fallon’s resignation as CENTCOM commander is pretty fresh news, and I’m sure we’ll learn more with time. For now, Fallon apparently resigned because of the appearance of disagreement with the president over the appropriate level of belligerence in U.S. policy towards Iran — or at least in his statement issued at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, he blamed it on the appearance rather than an actual conflict over Iran policy (reported widely, including here).

The appearance of policy conflict is nothing new for ADM Fallon. Rumors have been flying more or less since the admiral moved from his billet as commander of Pacific Command (where his policy views were controversial, too, but perhaps more quietly controversial because they were over longer-range China policy rather than an ongoing war). When Fallon took his current position at the head of U.S. Central Command, people began to talk about his sharp disagreements with Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, over both substance (on the surge) and style (Gen. Petraeus’ high-profile comments that sometimes seem to defend the Bush administration in political battles). Of course, Gen. Petraeus is extremely popular with ADM Fallon’s boss and with many other politicians. And that disagreement has been compounded, in the rumors, with an ongoing disagreement over Iran policy (perhaps principally with Vice President Chenney, if the rumors are to be believed). The Iran disagreement perhaps came to a head with the publication of a story in last week’s Esquire.

On Iran, ADM Fallon’s statement says, “I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility….” It’s easy to see through this comment: even people who think “we can live with an Iranian nuclear bomb” agree that the U.S. should prefer a non-nuclear Iran to a nuclear-armed one. So we all agree on the objectives of our policy. That statement, though, can certainly cover up intense disagreement about the means of trying to achieve that objective and about whether we’re likely to succeed.

(more…)

Last week, John McCain became the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Because of his early and unwavering support, the war in Iraq is sure to be a central theme. McCain will trumpet the security gains of last year’s surge, while the Democratic nominee will argue for withdrawal (in Obama’s case, within 16 months of inauguration day). While the campaign rhetoric is sure to fly fast and loose, one thing Americans should know is that there will be no easy answers. Since the end of the invasion, American policy makers have been flummoxed about how to pacify and build Iraq after decades of tyranny and a mismanaged occupation. American voters, and eventually policy makers, will have to make difficult choices and these choices will be based on how we prioritize the mission in Iraq in relation to both foreign and domestic policy. (more…)

Recently I debated on television the cost and impact of the U.S. military budget. Predictably, the other panelists, an analyst from the American Enterprise Institute and a veteran Republican consultant said all is well and that there is nothing to worry about. In their view any complaints are just the whining of disaffected, unpatriotic liberals.

Well, perhaps not. In that regard let’s take a look at a new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict  by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes. They have built on working papers they previously published in 2006 and this one in 2007.

Assuming that people are not yet totally jaded about Iraq their book should open some eyes. Beyond looking at the predictable, such as the incremental operating costs of the war, they detail expenses that the military likes to downplay, such as replacing military equipment (being used up at six times the peacetime rate), and, more importantly, speaking as a veteran,  the cost of caring for thousands of wounded veterans—for the rest of their lives. 

Trying to grasp the sheer enormity of the U.S. military budget is always difficult, given most news coverage of it is done haphazardly but let’s consider this excerpt from a recent TomDispatch: 

In the week that oil prices once again crested above $100 a barrel and more Americans than at any time since the Great Depression owed more on their homes than the homes were worth; in the year that the subprime market crashed, global markets shuddered, the previously unnoticed credit-default swap market threatened to go into the tank, stagflation returned, unemployment rose, the “R” word (for recession) hit the headlines (while the “D” word lurked), within weeks of the fifth anniversary of his invasion of Iraq, the President of the United States officially discovered the war economy.  …

In other words, in honor of the soon-to-arrive fifth anniversary of his war without end, the President has offered a formula for economic success in bad times that might be summed up this way: less houses, more bases, more weaponry, more war. This, of course, comes from the man who, between 2001 and today, presided over an official Pentagon budget that leapt by more than 60% from $316 billion to $507 billion, and by more than 30% since Iraq was invaded. Looked at another way, between 2001 and the latest emergency supplemental request to pay for his wars (first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq), supplemental funding for war-fighting has jumped from $17 billion to $189 billion, an increase of 1,011%. At the same time, almost miraculously, the U.S. armed forces have been driven to the edge of the military equivalent of default.

(more…)