Veterans for Common Sense

April 10, 2008 – As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me “coming around” to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape “over the wall” in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No – John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John’s treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW’s for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case – new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many – not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

April 9, 2008 – Washington, DC — The House voted Tuesday to expand research into and surveillance of traumatic brain injuries, which affect some 1.5 million Americans every year and have come to be the signature wound of the war in Iraq. It also moved to ensure that all newborns get adequate screening for genetic or metabolic diseases.

The brain trauma bill, passed 392-1 by the House, closely mirrors legislation already approved by the Senate, and the Senate is expected to act soon to send it to President Bush for his signature.

The legislation authorizes National Institutes of Health programs through fiscal year 2011 and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a study into national traumatic brain injury trends and identify treatments. It also supports Health Resources Service Administration grants to fund state projects to improve access to rehabilitation.

It commissions a study into military personnel who have incurred traumatic brain injuries while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, examining how they are being reintegrated into their communities.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., a chief sponsor of the bill, said up to two-thirds of those wounded in Iraq have injuries affecting the brain, and many, especially those from the National Guard and the Reserves, have to turn to civilian care because their injuries are initially misdiagnosed or go undiagnosed.

With the act, Pascrell said, “the House is giving a voice to the millions of brain-injured Americans suffering from this silent epidemic.”

Studies show that every year 1.5 million people in the United States sustain a traumatic brain injury from traffic and sports accidents, falls or violence, resulting in 50,000 deaths and 235,000 hospitalizations. Brain injury costs are estimated at $60 billion a year or more.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the programs included in the bill will cost the federal government $1.5 billion in the 2008-2012 period. The NIH estimates that it will spend $352 million for trauma-related activities in the fiscal year that ended last September.

The legislation, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, expands on a program first enacted by Congress in 1996.

The House also passed by voice vote a bill approving $45 million in 2008 to help states expand their newborn screening programs. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., sponsor of the bill in the Senate with Hatch, said parents are often unaware that screening regimens differ from state to state and that a newborn disorder that might be successfully diagnosed and treated in one state might be missed in another state that does not require testing for that disorder.

Dodd, who held a news conference Tuesday with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former Buffalo Bills quarterback Jim Kelly to promote the legislation, said that with passage “we are another step closer to ensuring that every baby born in the United States will be tested for a full panel of genetic and metabolic disorders.”

About 4,000 babies are identified and treated every year for conditions that could threaten their lives or health.

That bill, passed by the Senate in December, goes to the president for his signature.

___

The brain trauma bill is S. 793.

The newborn screening bill is S. 1858

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

April 8, 2008 – Sure, Arizona Senator John McCain’s campaign may still be selling him as some kind of “maverick” or “independent thinker” — and most of the media may still be buying that ridiculous line.

But when it comes to the fundamental foreign policy issue of the 2008 race – whether to continue the war in Iraq, and at what cost – McCain’s a yes man.

When Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. general in charge of spinning the Iraq quagmire as something other than a quagmire, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the U.S. diplomat charged with similar responsibilities, appeared before Congress, McCain greeted them the on-bended-knee position he has adopted since he decided that he would rather be the Republican nominee for president than a serious member of the U.S Congress.

Declaring with as straight a face as he could muster success in Iraq was “within reach,” McCain explained to Petraeus and Crocker that they would get no advice or counsel from this senator.

“Our goal — my goal — is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops, and I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine,” McCain told his task masters. “But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership.”

Apparently confusing “moral leadership” with the denial of reality, McCain declared against all evidence that, “Success, the establishment of peaceful, democratic state, the defeat of terrorism — this success is within reach. Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We must choose to succeed.”

To describe McCain’s comments at the Petraeus-Crocker hearing as “meaningless” would be an insult to meaninglessness. He added nothing to the discussion except cheerleading, and he sent the general and the ambassador back to Iraq without the benefit of the experience and insights of a member of Congress whose background could have been of value.

McCain’s decision to go AWOL was as embarrassing as it was disappointing.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama both made more of an effort to live up to their responsibilities as senators.

As someone who voted with McCain to get into the mess that is Iraq, Clinton acknowledged reality when she told Petraeus and Crocker that it was “time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops” from Iraq.

Clinton was still a little soft when she said, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again.”

But at least she was on the side of realism — even if she arrived there late in the game.

Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.

“The most important issue is still the one that was asked in September which is how has this war made us safer and at what point do we know that there is success so we can start bringing our troops home,” the Democratic contender explained before the hearing.

“My belief is that we are not in a situation where staying another 10, 15 or 20 years is going to change the fundamentals on the ground,” explained Obama, who added that, “What we have not seen is the Iraqi government using the space that was created not only by our troops but by the standdown of the militias in places like Basra, to use that to move forward on a political agenda that could actually bring stability.”

So, as a senator, McCain failed the test Tuesday. But which Democrat offered the strongest challenge to the Petraeus-Crocker spin?

Clinton? Obama?

No, Russ Feingold.

The Democratic senator from Wisconsin, who is not running for president but probably should be, continued to take his job as a senator more seriously than any of his colleagues.

Feingold told Petraeus and Crocker: I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not “are we winning or losing in Iraq?” but “are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?”

April 9, 2008 – The answer is NO. PERIOD.
I am writing about this because I got a call from a BBC reporter who wanted to talk to a veteran with PTSD who was being sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan.
When my husband Bob was diagnosed with “combat fatigue” about a year after he got back from Vietnam, (1966) the Army sent him the diagnosis and the information that as a result he could NEVER BE SENT TO A COMBAT ZONE AGAIN.
So what has changed?
They changed the name of the condition, but it is still the same condition.
They have new medication, but there is no medication for combat PTSD, as Jonathan Shay, MD says in his article at www.dr-bob.org/tips/ptsd.html.
There is no draft, but they need more soldiers than they have.
The job of psychiatrists today is to give pills, not find out what is torturing their patients.
The job of military patients, who are in because they want a military career, is to shut up and take the pills so they don’t lose their careers.
It is the political situation that has changed.
Politics, as usual, sends people back into hell.
What is the evidence for it being safe? As far as I know there is none. Israeli studies of their multi-war vets showed that those who had PTSD got it faster and worse in the next war.
This is one of those cases where what should be (It ought to work, sending them back on meds) trumps actual experience. We see WWII, Korean, and Vietnam vets with long term effects from war, but this time it’s different. We have medications! Well most of those veterans were SELF-MEDICATING all along, and it didn’t work. But we have better meds. Oh, yeah? Where are the randomized double-blind trials to prove it. There are none.
It is like the earlier denial and delusion period of American psychiatry-1968 to 1980-when on no scientific evidence, any diagnosis which derived from traumatic events was dropped because people, normal people, “shouldn’t” be affected by horrific experiences. Guys with couches decided that. Guys with pill bottles are deciding this.
Recovering from traumatic events takes time, just like recovering from a physical wound. This is a stress injury, not a chemical problem. Even if the chemistry is changed by the experience that should be a hint to everyone that war is not good for people. Our bodies are designed to react to stress and to AVOID it. Most PTSD symptoms start out as brain-and-body based, built-in survival mechanisms, which keep you alive and get you out of there! Modern warfare is designed to provide stress after stress after stress. Pills will numb your edge and, in my humble opinion, get you in worse shape. They may help when you get back as you work on recovery, but they are not recovery.
What works for emotional numbing and avoidance? Feeling the pain of your dead buddies, working through the stages of grief. There is no pill for that. It takes time.
What works for hyper-arousal? Somatic therapies, meditation, learning people-skills like “We can agree to disagree,” etc. Learning to avoid triggers. Learning to identify triggers. Learning how to bring yourself back to the present when you are triggered.
What works for re-experiencing? Going through the story of what happened and turning it from fragments of smell, sound, vision, emotion, into a coherent narrative which moves it from your reptile brain up into your narrative memory in your fore-brain.
There are many methods which work to do these things. Probably the fastest is TIR (Traumatic Incident Reduction, www.tir.org). Most of them take TIME and time is what the current situation does not allow for, nor military culture, nor the culture of current psychiatric practice which is heavily influenced by the major drug companies.
It is not ethical. First do no harm. Sending them back with PTSD harms our soldiers.

April 7, 2008 – Washington, DC — Members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces, say nonpartisan watchdog groups.

David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, is to brief the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees on Tuesday and Wednesday. The latest findings are unlikely to have a significant impact on this week’s proceedings but could stoke anti-incumbent sentiment in this year of presidential and legislative elections.

Lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stock in those very firms, as do vocal critics of the war in Iraq, says the Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.

Members of Congress are required to report their personal finances every year but only need to state their assets in broad ranges.

Other top investors include Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican with holdings of 12.1 million – 49.1 million dollars; Rep. Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican (9.2 million – 37.1 million dollars); Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin (5.2 million – 7.6 million dollars); and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat (2.7 million – 6.3 million dollars).

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat and former governor of West Virginia who chairs the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, invested some 2.0 million dollars in Pentagon contractors, CRP says.

Other panel chiefs who invested in defence firms include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who presides over the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In all, 151 current members of Congress — more than one-fourth of the total — have invested between 78.7 million dollars and 195.5 million dollars in companies that received defence contracts of at least 5.0 million dollars, according to CRP.

These companies received more than 275.6 billion dollars from the government in 2006, or 755 million dollars per day, says budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The investments yielded lawmakers 15.8 million – 62 million dollars in dividend income, capital gains, royalties, and interest from 2004 through 2006, says CRP.

Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues. Many are leaders in their industries and, as such, feature in the investment portfolios of millions of ordinary people who invest at least a portion of their savings in mutual funds, which in turn hold stocks in up to hundreds of companies.

“Giant corporations outside of the defence sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defence contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public,” says CRP.

“So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defence contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them,” the group acknowledges.

If some of the stocks appear innocent, aides say legislators also are. Some did not buy the stocks in question but inherited them. Many hold them in blind trusts, so called because the investments are handled by independent entities, at least theoretically without the politicians’ knowledge of how their assets are being managed.

Even so, according to CRP, owning stock in companies under contract with the Pentagon could prove “problematic for members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee defence policy and budgeting.”

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees held 3.0 million – 5.1 million dollars in companies specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services, it added.

Critics have assailed President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney for their ties to companies seen as benefiting from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Bush was characterised as pushing conflict in the interest of the oil fraternity whence he hailed.

Before becoming vice president, Cheney headed Halliburton, a major player in the oil services industry and the object of controversies involving political connections, government contracts, and business ethics.

Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, was given multi-billion-dollar contracts to provide construction, hospitality, and other services to the U.S. military following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The contracts drew fire because of Cheney’s history and then-ongoing financial relationship with the firm, and because the company did not have to compete for the Pentagon’s business. The firm was renamed KBR Inc. after Halliburton spun it off last year.

April 9, 2008 – Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, testified before two Senate committees on Tuesday regarding the state of the war. Salon takes a look at their various claims and admissions, boiling down the rhetoric and what we might expect as the war moves into its sixth year.

Claim: The surge is working.

Petraeus: “Though Iraq obviously remains a violent country, we do see progress in the security arena.”

Crocker: “One conclusion I draw from these signs of progress is that the strategy that began with the surge is working.”

There is truth to this, depending on how “real progress” is defined. Petraeus once again came to Congress, as he did last September, armed with a dizzying array of graphs to make his point. The multicolored charts show that “security incidents” are down — but only to mid-2005 levels. Civilian deaths are down, too — but only to February 2006 levels. Most security experts agree there is still a civil war going on in Iraq.

There is no evidence to indicate that Petraeus spoke inaccurately. So, the real question to help guide U.S. strategy and tactics (including troop levels) is: Why is violence relatively down?

In answering that question, even Petraeus and Crocker didn’t much emphasize the increased number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Instead, they talked much more about cutting deals. In the so-called Sunni awakening that started before the surge in late 2006, substantial Sunni communities have agreed to a cease-fire with U.S. forces and to fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. Meanwhile, Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s decision in August 2007 to declare a cease-fire is widely regarded as being a substantial factor in the reduced violence in Iraq.

Meanwhile in some areas, including Baghdad, neighborhoods have been partitioned along sectarian lines — at the barrel of a gun. Shiites aren’t killing as many Sunnis in Baghdad, for example, because many neighborhoods don’t have any Sunnis anymore. They have been forced out, and their homes have been taken over by Shiites. As Petraeus put it, “Some of this decrease [in violence] is, to be sure, due to sectarian hardening of certain Baghdad neighborhoods.”

Claim: The surge may ultimately succeed; we’ve kept civil war to a simmer in Iraq, and there is real national political reconciliation happening.

Crocker: “In the last several months … Iraq’s Parliament has formulated, debated vigorously, and in many cases passed legislation dealing with vital issues of reconciliation and nation building.”

This is also true, on paper. The most often cited example of this progress is the recent passage by the Iraqi Parliament of three laws: allowing members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party back into government, approving local and regional elections for this October, and granting amnesty in the cases of tens of thousands of prisoners in Iraqi and U.S. custody.

But it is unclear the extent to which these laws are, or will ever be, implemented in Iraq. As a report from the United States Institute of Peace this month says, “implementation is uneven” of these measures.

Admission: Despite progress, the whole thing could go into the commode at any moment.

Petraeus: “The progress made [on security] since last spring is fragile and reversible.”

Crocker: “These gains are fragile, and they are reversible.”

Give ’em credit for being honest here. As the recent explosion of intra-Shiite fighting in the southern city of Basra illustrated so painfully, the real reason there has been some progress in Iraq is that the members of various Iraqi groups have agreed to shoot at each other and U.S. troops less often — at least for now.

But they can decide otherwise at any time. If the various factions — including Muqtada al-Sadr and his powerful Mahdi Army — decide that it is “game on,” again, the roughly 160,000 American troops will be caught in the crossfire.

Claim: It is still possible to turn Iraq into a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Crocker: “Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure, multiethnic, multisectarian democracy under the rule of law.”

The number of credible national security experts out there who believe that Iraq is going to transform into a Jeffersonian democracy anytime soon can probably be counted on one hand. With room to spare.

As mentioned above, perhaps the most hopeful things in this whole picture are the various cease-fires and handshake agreements among various sects. This is the “bottom-up reconciliation” you hear so much about from the White House these days. But given the deep sectarian fault lines remaining in Iraq, many experts wonder whether we shouldn’t be using the bottom-up progress to foster something less than a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East and more of a partitioned, heavily policed situation, as was done in the Balkans. This might be a more realistic goal than trying to make Iraq into post-World War II Germany.

Claim: A key positive development is the number of Iraqis (mainly Sunnis) who are volunteering for U.S.-funded local security units called the “Sons of Iraq.”

Petraeus: “The emergence of Iraqi volunteers helping to secure their local communities has been an important development.”

We are paying Iraqis not to shoot so much. There are now more than 91,000 Sons of Iraq funded by U.S. taxpayers. The vast majority are Sunnis, including former insurgents who fought against U.S. troops. But there is little reason to believe they feel allegiance to a central government led by a Shiite, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Only 21,000 of them have been “transitioned” into Iraqi government security forces. While the creation of the Sons of Iraq has arguably resulted in some decrease in violence, this would seem to be one of the security gains that could be “reversible” at the drop of a hat.

Claim: Iran’s influence in Iraq is really bad; the Iranians are arming “special groups,” or rogue militias that are a threat to the Iraqi central government.

Petraeus: “Together with the Iraqi security forces, we have also focused on the special groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran’s Qods force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah.”

Crocker: “Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state through the authority and training of criminal militia elements engaged in violence against Iraqi security forces, Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.”

Iranian meddling in Iraq is one of the murkiest and most difficult parts of the picture to assess. The United States has made various claims about direct Iranian involvement in military activity in Iraq, although evidence of such involvement has been unclear. But there can be no doubt about Iranian influence in Iraq more broadly: For example, the Iranians, not the Americans, reportedly brokered the recent cease-fire in Basra. And the Iranians have significant ties to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a crucial member of the coalition keeping Maliki in power. As Crocker admitted on Tuesday, “Iran has a dialogue with everyone in the Shiite community.”

Claim: “Al-Qaida in Iraq” is also pretty bad. But we are kicking their ass in Iraq, and by extension, Osama bin Laden’s.

Petraeus: “The threat posed by AQI [al-Qaida in Iraq] — while still lethal and substantial — has been reduced significantly … Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have consistently advocated exploiting the situation in Iraq, and we have also seen AQI involved in destabilizing activities in the wider Mideast region.”

The gains in this respect have been trumpeted as one of the great successes of the past year in Iraq. By some accounts, al-Qaida in Iraq — or what the Bush administration, at least, labels as some sort of organization there linked with Osama bin Laden’s — is on its heels in Iraq. This is mostly because the group or groups of militants overplayed their hand with extreme violence against Iraqis, and Sunnis, particularly in western Iraq, turned against them. Nevertheless, the connection between “AQI” and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization is considered dubious by experts, who warn not to think of AQI and al-Qaida as the same thing.

Claim: The recent battle of Basra, in which government forces led by Maliki, a Shiite, attacked militias affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr, another Shiite, was a positive development. Maliki was cracking down on criminals, including Shiites.

Crocker: “When viewed with a broader lens, the Iraqi decision to combat these groups in Basra has major significance. First, a Shiite majority government, led by Prime Minister Maliki, has demonstrated its commitment to taking on criminals and extremists regardless of sectarian identity. Second, Iraqi security forces led these operations in Basra and in towns and cities throughout the south.”

Some observers think Maliki dispatched Iraqi troops to Basra not to enforce law and order, but to weaken his political adversary, Sadr, before elections in October. Maliki only gave the Americans a heads-up about the operation just before it started.

Tactical success was another matter. The Iraqi units arrived in Basra driving armored vehicles too fat to fit into some of Basra’s skinny alleys. More than 1,000 Iraqi policemen and soldiers sent there by Maliki refused to fight, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle. The Bush administration had, at first, called the offensive a “defining moment” that would prove the Iraqi military’s mettle. And Maliki had, at first, vowed to see it through to victory. But it was, at best, a stalemate.

Claim: The Iraqis have redesigned their flag — which is a big deal because it suggests that Iraq is pulling together as a nation and that things will turn out well.

Crocker: “In January, a vote by the Council of Representatives to change the design of the Iraqi flag means the flag now flies in all parts of the country for the first time in years.”

So, if the nation has pulled together, why are we still there again?

Admission: This summer, there will be no further reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the ongoing drawdown; the occupation will flatten out at pre-surge levels, around 140,000 troops.

Petraeus: “I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown of the surge combat forces and that, upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions.”

In essence: With the occupation after this summer holding steady at roughly 140,000 U.S. troops, the Iraq war will now be, definitively, the next American president’s problem.

April 8, 2008 – Seventeen Iraq combat veterans are running for House seats as Republicans, pledging to continue the war once in Congress and linking themselves to Sen. John McCain’s candidacy for president.

As Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, prepares to go to Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss his record there, some of the vets also came to Washington to link themselves to the general whose 2007 troop surge they believe has improved America’s prospects for victory.

In 2006, the Democrats had some success with a slate of veterans who used their military credentials to argue against the war. The Republican veterans argue that such antiwar vets are the exception and, even though the public is still against the war, they will be able to make the case that the country is succeeding and should commit the resources to achieve victory.

“Iraq’s going to be a tough issue for everybody, but we’re going to be uniquely positioned to deal with it,” says former Marine Cpl. Keiran Lalor, a Republican running in the Hudson Valley of New York. “The Democrats went around and found the exception to the rule: They found the Iraq vets against the war.”

The Republican vets have linked themselves to Sen. McCain’s presidential bid and hope to ride to victory on his coattails. They hope that if independents decide to support Sen. McCain and his commitment to finish the job in Iraq, they will vote that way down-ballot as well.

While most of the group, calling themselves Iraq Veterans for Congress, are running against incumbent Democrats, four are in primary contests for seats currently held by Republicans. In two of these races, the veterans are challenging incumbents the national party would prefer to run again. An additional vet has already won the primary for an open Republican seat.

Several members of Iraq Veterans for Congress, founded by Mr. Lalor, are running in districts considered safe for Democratic incumbents, making their candidacies largely symbolic. Mr. Lalor faces Democratic freshman Rep. John Hall, a former rock singer with the 1970s group Orleans.

Mr. Lalor says he is running to represent Gen. Petraeus, who was born in Cornwall, N.Y., a town in the 19th district, and whose alma mater, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, is also in the district.

Even symbolic candidacies could influence the debate in swing states. Former Army Lt. Col. William Russell is running against Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, one of the top Democrats in the House. Mr. Russell says Rep. Murtha has “emboldened the enemy” with remarks about the Marines accused of killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq. At an event with other members of the group Monday, he called Gen. Petraeus “a consummate warrior” and said he would stake his own life on the general’s integrity.

In two districts in Ohio and New Jersey, Iraq veterans are running for seats being vacated by Republicans. Democrats almost won both two years ago, and this time both Democratic challengers, boasting more name recognition and money, are gunning for a rematch.

The Iraq vets’ efforts have gained the most headway in Ohio’s 15th district, where the first of the 17 members of the organization to win a primary race is State Sen. Steve Stivers. While he says he admires both Sen. McCain and Gen. Petraeus, he isn’t making Iraq policy the centerpiece of his campaign. “I’ll talk about Iraq with anyone who asks me, but now it’s not the first issue on people’s minds,” the 43-year-old Ohio native says. “Jobs and the economy are where my focus is.”

After several prominent Republicans declined to run this year, Mr. Stivers threw his hat into the ring to succeed retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce. He won the March 4 primary with 66{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the vote, but his prospects in November are dicey. Sen. Barack Obama, who has trumpeted his antiwar record, carried the counties that compose most of Mr. Stivers’s district, including the Columbus suburbs, where Sen. Obama beat Sen. Hillary Clinton by 14 points. The district is also home to the main campus of Ohio State University, where a Republican candidate’s call to “complete the mission” in Iraq is more likely to drive turnout for the Democrats
Other primary races could cause problems for the national Republican party. Two veterans are challenging sitting congressmen — Bill Sali in Idaho’s First District, and Doug Lamborn in Colorado’s Fifth. Mr. Sali angered party loyalists by winning what many called a nasty campaign in 2006, and his malapropisms, once he was in office, became frequent fodder for Boise newspaper columnists.

Doug Lamborn engendered such rancor in his 2006 Colorado primary that Joel Hefley, the outgoing Republican congressman, refused to endorse him. Mr. Lamborn’s district includes Fort Carson, an Army post that has suffered hundreds of casualties in Iraq. He is being challenged in his party’s primary by retired Air Force Gen. Bentley Rayburn, who served in two Iraq wars.

In a normal year, both Messrs. Sali and Lamborn could feel safe, even though both are House freshmen who embittered local Republicans on the way to winning their seats. But challenges by Iraq veterans may swing hard-core Republicans against both men in this year’s primaries. That would leave the national party with a dilemma: no incumbent to support in the November election.

In New Jersey, Tom Roughneen is running in the primary in the Seventh District, which retiring Rep. Mike Ferguson barely held in 2006 against Democrat Linda Stender. Mr. Roughneen, a civil-affairs captain in Iraq and Essex County assistant prosecutor, knows he is a dark horse in a field that includes Kate Whitman, the daughter of former New Jersey governor and Bush cabinet member Christie Todd Whitman. But as the only Iraq veteran in the race, he says he is best equipped to fend off Democrats’ charges that the Iraq war has been a mistake.

“The way for the party to hold this district is for a veteran to represent the party,” says the 38-year-old New Jersey native. “Against a veteran, Linda Stender will look foolish trying to convince voters the success we’ve had in Iraq has been a waste of lives.”

April 8, 2008 – On Thursday in the National Press Club in Washington, a crowd gathered to witness the presentation of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling to Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz. The story of Matthew Diaz was chronicled in this space repeatedly.  It is a story of courage, fortitude, conviction and suffering. Joe Margulies introduced the honoree with clarity:

no one can think it is fun when you sit in a courtroom as an accused, and a United States prosecutor points an accusatory finger at your chest and calls you a criminal and tells you that you have betrayed your oath and you have betrayed your country, and you have endangered the safety of the men and women that you swore to share your burdens with. And no one can think it is fun when you have to sit with your heart pounding in your chest as the jury files back into the room with a piece of paper folded in its hands, and that piece of paper holds your fate. And no one can think it is fun when that jury, your peers, pronounces you guilty. And no one can think it is fun when you have to face that same jury that will sentence you for what may be many years; many years that you will be away from your family, your life in tatters, your career ruined.

Matthew Diaz served his country as a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. He watched a shameless assault on America’s Constitution and commitment to the rule of law carried out by the Bush Administration. He watched the introduction of a system of cruel torture and abuse. He watched the shaming of the nation’s uniformed services, with their proud traditions that formed the very basis of the standards of humanitarian law, now torn asunder through the lawless acts of the Executive. Matthew Diaz found himself in a precarious position—as a uniformed officer, he was bound to follow his command. As a licensed and qualified attorney, he was bound to uphold the law. And these things were indubitably at odds.

Diaz resolved to do something about it. He knew the Supreme Court twice ruled the Guantánamo regime, which he was under orders to uphold, was unlawful. In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned “white as a sheet” and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

One of the crimes the Administration committed was withholding from the Red Cross a list of the detainees at Guantánamo, effectively making them into secret detainees. Before the arrival of the Bush Administration, the United States had taken the axiomatic position that holding persons in secret detention for prolonged periods outside the rule of law (a practice known as “disappearing”) was not merely unlawful, but in fact a rarified “crime against humanity.” Now the United States was engaged in the active practice of this crime.

The decision to withhold the information had been taken, in defiance of law, by senior political figures in the Bush Administration. Diaz was aware of it, and he knew it was unlawful. He printed out a copy of the names and sent them to a civil rights lawyer who had requested them in federal court proceedings.

Diaz was aware when he did this that he was violating regulations and that he could and would, if caught, be subjected to severe sanction. What he did was a violation of law, even as it was an effort to cure a more severe act of lawlessness by the Government. Diaz violated the law in precisely the same sense as Martin Luther King reminds us, in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, that his arrest was based on a violation of law. That everything the Nazis did in Germany was lawful. And that every act of the Hungarian freedom fighters was a crime. In terms of the moral law, however, Diaz was on the side of right, and the Bush Administration and the Pentagon had, by engaging in the conduct that the Supreme Court condemned, placed themselves on the side of lawlessness, corruption and dishonor.

Diaz was charged, tried and convicted for disclosing “secrets.” For the Bush Administration, any information which would be politically embarrassing or harmful to it is routinely classified “secret.” In this fashion the Administration believes it can use criminal sanctions against those who disclose information it believes will be politically damaging. The list of detainees at Guantánamo, which by law was required to be disclosed, was classified as “secret.”

Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.

In the week in which Diaz received the Ridenhour Prize, another Pentagon “secret” was disclosed. This “secret” was a memorandum made to order for William J. Haynes II, Rumsfeld’s General Counsel, and the man at the apex of the Pentagon’s military justice system that tried, convicted and sentenced Diaz. The memo was authored by John Yoo. This memorandum was designed to authorize the introduction of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques to be used upon prisoners held at Guantánamo, and ultimately also used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The memorandum authorized waterboarding, long-time standing, hypothermia, the administration of psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation in excess of two days in addition to a number of other techniques. Each of these techniques is long established as torture as a matter of American and international law. The application and implementation of these techniques was and is a crime.

The exact circumstances surrounding the dealings between Haynes and Yoo that led to the development of this memorandum are unclear. However, it is clear that Haynes had previously authorized the use of the torture techniques, and had secured an order from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld authorizing them.

Following the implementation of these techniques, more than 108 detainees died in detention. In a large number of these cases, the deaths have been ruled a homicide and connected to torture. These homicides were a forseeable consequence of the advice that Haynes and Yoo gave.

The introduction of torture techniques destroyed America’s reputation around the world, dramatically eroded a system of alliances that generations of Americans fought and labored to sustain and build, and provided the basis for a dramatic recruitment campaign for terrorist groups who are the nation’s principal adversaries in the war on terror. Yoo’s and Haynes’s conduct dramatically undercut the security and safety of every American. And equally, Yoo and Haynes demonstrated by their conduct contempt for the rule of law and the principles for which hundreds of thousands of Americans shed their blood in prior conflicts.

Yoo is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, the author of a number of widely featured books, and a widely followed media figure whose works are routinely published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania and California.

Haynes recently left the position of General Counsel at the Department of Defense to become General Counsel–Corporate at Chevron Inc. He remains a member of the bar in North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

A system that punishes and shames Matthew Diaz, yet obstructs any investigation into the misconduct of John Yoo and Jim Haynes, and particularly their focal rule in the introduction of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is corrupt. Indeed, it persecutes the innocent and rewards the guilty. A bar association that disbars Matthew Diaz and leaves Yoo and Haynes free to practice is fundamentally corrupt. In essence, this choice reflects a legal profession that puts upholding the will of the Executive, even when it commands the most egregious and unlawful conduct, over the Rule of Law. It reflects the abnegation of the bedrock principles of the profession and the principles of the American Constitution and the Revolution which gave rise to it.

Lieutenant Commander Diaz reminds us of the powerful words of Justice Brandeis:

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole of the people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law and invites every man to become a law unto itself. It breeds anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means would bring terrible retribution.

In a day when the legal profession is disgraced repeatedly by the performance of lawyers in the service of their government, Matthew Diaz is emerging as a hero to many, and as a symbol that for some lawyers devotion to truth, integrity and justice still matters. Indeed, that dedication and willingness to shoulder the burden it can bring, is and will likely be seen by future generations of Americans as the higher form of patriotism.

April 7, 2008 – While General Petraeus prepares to testify before Congress this week about future troop levels in Iraq, the Army is expressing strong concerns about the strain that additional tours of duty will place on our service people.

As the son of a World War II veteran, I understand the mental stresses that often plague soldiers returning from combat. When my father returned from war, he suffered from nightmares and other mental stresses – what we now understand to be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  
 
In February, I introduced H.R. 5448 – the Full Faith in Veterans Act of 2008 – to address this problem. The bill will improve diagnosis, compensation, and treatment for veterans suffering from PTSD. By requiring that Veterans Administration employees take sufficient time to diagnose and accurately rate the severity of the disorder, the bill ensures that veterans suffering from PTSD will receive the appropriate compensation and proper treatment needed to live a normal life.

A recent Army survey of soldiers’ mental health shows that 18 percent of noncommissioned officers exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder upon returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. Most importantly, that number increases to 27 percent – or one in four noncommissioned officers – following their third and fourth tours of duty.

The current state of our overstretched military forces requires more soldiers to serve multiple tours and longer deployments without adequate recovery time. Out of the 513,000 active-duty soldiers that have served in Iraq, nearly 200,000 have been deployed more than once and more than 53,000 have been deployed three or more times.

It is clear that multiple tours and prolonged deployments exact incredible stress on our soldiers and their families. The study reports that “soldiers on multiple deployments report low morale, more mental health problems and more stress-related work problems.” “By the time they are on their third or fourth deployments, soldiers ‘are at particular risk of reporting mental health problems.'” [New York Times, 4/6/08]

Tomorrow, General Petraeus will most likely announce that there will be no additional drawdowns beyond those already scheduled, leaving nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq at least until the fall. With a continued occupation in Iraq and ongoing missions in Afghanistan, these long deployments and repeated tours are likely to continue, and the numbers of soldiers suffering from PTSD are likely to increase.

It is imperative that we act now to provide the quality mental health care our veterans deserve. We cannot subject our troops to the pressures of combat without promising them the resources needed to reintegrate into civilian life.  Congress needs to pass the Full Faith in Veterans Act as quickly as possible, and we must set a deadline for a responsible and safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.   

Last month, the US marked five years in Iraq with the tragic news of 4,000 service members killed in the war zone.  But the 4,000 U.S. deaths are only part of the story. 

In addition to the deaths, the devastating facts about the war continue to leak out.  On the night of April 8, in an effort to conceal bad news from the public and press, the Department of Defense quietly released their new U.S. service member battlefield casualty statistics from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: 74,713. 

Veterans for Common Sense vigilantly monitors these statistics for our members by checking for new DoD casualty reports about Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of the month, based on a Freedom of Information Act request we sent in nearly two years ago.

DoD prepares one report for Iraq War casualties and one for Afghanistan war casualties and posts them to a hard-to-find web site.   VCS then combines the statistics in easy-to-read fact sheets for distribution to our members, the public, journalists, and our lawmakers.  VCS obtained the difficult-to-find DoD web site address for the reports through the Freedom of Information Act.

The sad news: the total number of casualties from both wars reached nearly 75,000, where casualty is defined as killed, wounded, injured, and ill.  The Afghanistan War caused more than 9,000 casualties to date.  And the Iraq War quagmire caused more than 65,000.  The DoD casualty reports document more than 70,000 total non-fatal casualties, plus nearly 4,500 deaths, from the two war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a grand total of 74,713 U.S. service member battlefield casualties.

The story line America should know is very simple: “DoD Reports 75,000 Casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.”  VCS thanks former Senator John Edwards for his recent letter to the Editor published in The New York Times highlighting the sacrifices being made daily by our men and women in uniform.

The obvious follow up to this devastating news is that VA reports 300,000 unexpected patients from the two wars, including more than 120,000 diagnosed with a mental health condition.  No wonder all our veterans are waiting, on average, more than six months for VA to provide disability benefits.

We strongly encourage our members to share this with friends, relatives, reporters, legislators, civic groups, and everyone else you know.  We all have a right to know the facts, and our veterans have a right to prompt access to healthcare and benefits.

All of America is familiar with the fact that yesterday General David Petraeus testified before Congress about the “fragile” state of the Iraq War.  Petraeus tried to put a happy face on a lost war to keep a lid on the fiasco through the 2008 election season.  What America needs to know is that a tidal wave of casualties are returning home, and we must welcome them home and prepare for their long-term medical care and disability benefit needs.

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR CASUALTY REPORT SOURCES: 

In order to determine the total number of battlefield casualties, add up the counts for both wars for the following three categories: Total Deaths, Total Wounded in Action, Total Non-Hostile-Related Medical Air Transport.

Link to Official Department of Defense Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF) Casualty Report: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OIF-Total.pdf

Link to Official DoD Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom) Casualty Report: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/WOTSUM.pdf