Veterans for Common Sense

December 8, 2008 – For more than five years, the Bush administration’s mercenary force of choice, Blackwater Worldwide, has operated on a US government contract in Iraq in a climate that has wed immunity with impunity. Today the Justice Department took the first concrete step to hold accountable the individuals responsible for the single greatest massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of an armed private force deployed in Iraq by the US government.

Five Blackwater operatives turned themselves in to federal authorities in Salt Lake City on Monday morning after being officially notified that they had each been indicted on fourteen manslaughter charges and allegations they used automatic weapons in the commission of a crime. A sixth Blackwater operative has already pleaded guilty to two charges as part of an agreement to testify against his colleagues. The thirty-five-count indictment was unsealed today in Washington, DC. It stems from the operatives’ alleged role in the Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad in September 2007 that left seventeen Iraqi civilians dead and more than twenty wounded. Today’s indictments represent the first time in more than five years of the Iraq occupation that the Justice Department has brought criminal charges against armed private contractors for crimes committed against Iraqis.

Significantly, Blackwater as a company faces no charges in the case.

“The government alleges in the documents unsealed today that at least 34 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured without justification or provocation by these Blackwater security guards in the shooting at Nisour Square,” said Patrick Rowan, assistant attorney general for national security. “Today’s indictment and guilty plea demonstrate that those who engage in unprovoked and illegal attacks on civilians, whether during times of conflict or times of peace, will be held accountable.”

In a dramatic twist, in addition to the manslaughter charges, the men are being charged under an antidrug law that provides for a thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence for using machine guns in the commission of violent crimes. Count thirty-five of the indictment charges that the men “knowingly used and discharged firearms,” including “an SR-25 sniper rifle; machine guns (M-4 assault rifles and M-240 machine guns); and destructive devices (M-203 grenade launchers and grenades), during and in relation to a crime of violence for which each of them may be prosecuted in a court of the United States.”

Jeremy Ridgeway, the Blackwater operative who pleaded guilty on Friday, has agreed to testify against the other five men, according to ABC News. Citing documents filed in his plea agreement, ABC reports that Ridgeway “acknowledged the government evidence would prove he and the others ‘opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians.’ He agreed none of the civilians ‘was an insurgent, and many were shot while inside of civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee.’ Ridgeway also admitted one victim was shot in his chest ‘while standing in the street with his hands up.'”

Federal prosecutors made clear that Blackwater itself will not face any charges in the case. As in most of the crimes committed against Iraqis by US military and private forces, this incident is being portrayed as the work of a few bad apples and not the bloody end-product of an out-of-control occupation. “We honor the brave service of the many US contractors who are employed to support the mission of our armed forces in extremely difficult circumstances,” said Jeff Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia. “Today, we honor that service by holding accountable the very few individuals who abused that employment by committing some very serious crimes against dozens of innocent civilians.” Blackwater owner Erik Prince and other company executives face no consequences for the actions of their men, nor does the State Department, which deployed the company’s men in Iraq.

The Nisour Square killings propelled Blackwater to international infamy and sparked demands from the US-installed Iraqi government for Blackwater to be expelled from the country. The Bush administration rejected those calls and in April renewed Blackwater’s Iraq contract for another year. Blackwater, the largest US security contractor in Iraq, has worked on a US government contract since August 28, 2003, when it was hired on an initial $27.7 million no-bid contract to protect the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. To date, Blackwater has been paid over a billion dollars for its “security” work for the State Department.

The shootings on September 16, 2007 were labeled “Baghdad’s Bloody Sunday.” They occurred shortly after noon when Blackwater forces opened fire on a civilian vehicle in a crowded intersection, killing a young Iraqi medical student, Ahmed al-Rubaie, and his mother, Mahasin. That shooting kicked off fifteen minutes of sustained gunfire, as civilians fled for their lives. Witnesses say the shooting was unprovoked, and according to ABC News, Ridgeway admitted to prosecutors that “‘there was no attempt to provide reasonable warning’ to the driver of a vehicle that was first targeted.” For more than a year, Blackwater has claimed its forces were the victims of an armed ambush. “Among the threats identified were men with AK-47s firing on the convoy, as well as approaching vehicles that appeared to be suicide bombers,” Prince claimed in prepared Congressional testimony in October 2007. Prince insisted that “based on everything we currently know, the Blackwater team acted appropriately while operating in a very complex war zone.”

The company’s claims were rejected by both the US military and the FBI. The military concluded there was “no enemy activity involved,” determined that all of the killings were unjustified and labeled the shootings a “criminal event.” That investigation found that many Iraqis were shot as they attempted to flee, saying “it had every indication of an excessive shooting.” The US military unit that responded to the shootings that day said they were “surprised at the caliber of weapon being used.” Two weeks after the massacre, the FBI finally was dispatched to Baghdad.

In November 2007, the first glimpse into the conclusions of the FBI probe emerged in the New York Times, which reported that the federal agents had “found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq.” The report added, “Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians,” quoting one official as saying, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.” A military investigator “said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.”

While the indictments in the Nisour Square case are significant and historic, there will be substantial legal hurdles for prosecutors, not the least of which is the State Department’s move in the immediate aftermath of the shootings to immunize the shooters from prosecution. The Bush administration left the initial investigation to Blackwater’s employer, the State Department. Investigators from the department’s Diplomatic Security Division offered the Blackwater shooters “limited-use immunity” before questioning them, meaning that their statements and information gleaned from them could neither be used to bring criminal charges against them nor even be introduced as evidence. When the FBI eventually arrived in Baghdad, some of the Blackwater guards involved in the shooting refused to be interviewed, citing promises of immunity from the State Department. The agency also discovered that the crime scene had been severely compromised.

The Blackwater guards will be at the center of a precedent-setting battle over what legal experts call a “grey zone” in US law under which private forces operate in Iraq. The men are being charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Passed in 2000, the law provides for prosecuting contractors working for or alongside the US military. Blackwater works for the State Department, and lawyers for the company’s five accused operatives will certainly challenge the law’s application to their clients. They also intend to use Blackwater’s longstanding argument that the shootings were the result of an armed attack against the men. “We think it’s pure and simple a case of self-defense,” said Paul Cassell, a Utah attorney on the defense team. “Tragically, people did die.”

By surrendering to authorities in Salt Lake City rather than in Washington, the accused men have fired their first defensive shot at federal prosecutors. They intend to fight for their trial to take place in a conservative, gun-friendly area of the country. “Though the case has already been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in Washington, the guards surrendered in Utah,” reports the Associated Press. There “they would presumably find a more conservative jury pool and one more likely to support the Iraq war.”

The five accused are: Paul A. Slough, 29, of Keller, Texas; Nicholas A. Slatten, 24, of Sparta, Tennessee; Evan S. Liberty, 26, of Rochester, New Hampshire; Dustin L. Heard, 27, of Maryville, Tennessee; and Donald W. Ball, 26, of West Valley City, Utah.

While Nisour Square was by far the most high-profile fatal incident involving Blackwater and other private forces in Iraq, scores of other such incidents have gone unprosecuted. Among these is the alleged killing by a Blackwater operative of a bodyguard to Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi on Christmas Eve 2006, inside Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone. The Iraqi government has labeled that incident a “murder.”

Blackwater also is being sued in civil court in the United States by Iraq victims of the Nisour Square shootings. No date has yet been set for that trial.

December 11, 2008 – As of Tuesday, day 2,091 of the war in Iraq –

5 Blackwater guards were named Monday in a federal indictment for what a sixth guard, who pled guilty to manslaughter, described as the unprovoked shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis last year, reported The New York Times.

10 suspected al-Qaeda members were arrested by Iraqi police Tuesday for allegedly orchestrating bombings last week that killed 19 people and wounded 43 others, reported Agence France-Presse.

1 of 15,800 people detained by the US in Iraq, Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed will not be released this year despite an Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruling to free him, reported Reuters.

1 of 2 American soldiers charged with murder in the May shooting death of a detained Iraqi pleaded not guilty Monday during a court-martial hearing in Kentucky, AP reported.

72 pages of a Pentagon Inspector General’s report made public Tuesday show that military officials understood the threat posed by roadside bombs in Iraq but did little to armor military vehicles, reported USA Today.

December 5, 2008 – Servicemembers and their spouses are flocking to a broad array of programs to help them strengthen their family relationships as the services step up efforts to curb divorce rates.

Military divorce rates rose by .1 percent — to 3.4 percent — during fiscal 2008, with 492 more divorces than the previous year, said Army Lt. Col Les’ Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman.

Military-wide, 25,750 marriages ended in divorce last year.

The Marine Corps, with 3,077 divorces last year, experienced the biggest increase, from 3.3 percent in fiscal 2007 to 3.7 percent.

The Army rate also increased — to 3.5 percent — with 10,200 divorces last year. The Army reported a 3.3 percent rate in fiscal 2007, with 9,134 divorces.

Meanwhile, divorce rates dropped .2 percent last year in the Navy and remained stable in the Air Force. The Navy reported a 3 percent rate in fiscal 2008, with 5,441 divorces representing a 618 decrease from the previous year’s number.

The Air Force reported a 3.5 percent divorce rate in both fiscal 2007 and 2008, but the actual number of divorces dropped by 618 — to 7,032.

Comparing these statistics to civilian divorce rates is difficult, officials said, but most sources agree that about 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce in the United States. The highest incidence of civilian divorces is within the 20- to 29-year-old population, which also makes up the largest percentage of the military.

Recognizing the hardships military life often imposes — and the challenges it can place on family relationships — the military services are working to buck societal trends through a full range of outreach programs. The programs are offered through the services’ family support, chaplain and mental health counseling networks and range from support groups for spouses of deployed troops to weekend retreats for military couples.

The Marine Corps provides various programs and counseling opportunities to assist couples in enriching their marriages and dealing with stresses inherent in the military lifestyle, said Greg Gordon from the Marine Corps’ Personal and Family Readiness Division.

These include the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, a two-day workshop that teaches couples how to manage conflict, solve problems, communicate effectively, and preserve and enhance their commitment and friendship. Participants begin the program by taking a marriage survey to help them evaluate their relationship and identify problems before they become serious. The four top problems generally involve communication, children and parenting, money and sexual intimacy, Mr. Gordon said.

In addition, a retreat program called the Chaplains Religious Enrichment Development Operation is designed to help Marines and their family members develop personal and spiritual resources.

The Army also has numerous programs aimed at helping couples. The goal is to build resiliency in Soldiers — 58 percent of them married — and the families who stand by them, said Lt. Col. George Wright, an Army spokesman.

The programs focus on communication, intimacy and conflict management, which research shows increases marriage satisfaction and reduces marital challenges.

“Military families have to adjust to more transitions than the typical family,” said Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Carleton Birch, from the Army’s Chief of Chaplains Office. “These programs strengthen the bonds that build resiliency in Army families.”

The centerpiece of the Army program is “Strong Bonds,” a program initiated by commanders and led by chaplains that helps Soldiers and their families build strong relationships. Strong Bonds has four parts: a general couples program, programs tailored for couples preparing for or returning from deployments, and programs for families and single Soldiers.

Much of the training is provided in a retreat-style format so Soldiers and their families can get away from their daily routines “to focus on their important relationships,” Colonel Wright said.

Participation in the program has doubled every year since the program started five years ago, Chaplain Birch said. So far, more than 60,000 couples have participated in the training.

The National Institutes of Health, which recently completed the first year of a five-year study evaluating the program’s effectiveness in building family resiliency, found “encouraging early results,” Chaplain Birch said.

Meanwhile, an attendee gave a full-fledged endorsement of the program’s value after attending a recent Strong Bonds session at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

“This is the first time since getting back from Iraq in April where I have felt that I am capable as well as confident enough to lead my family in a loving and caring environment,” he said. “The tools that I have learned will serve us a lifetime. This should be mandatory training for all married couples.”

While praising the benefits these programs offer families, officials said they recognize that strong marital and family relationships make better Soldiers.

It also has an important impact on a soldier’s decision to re-enlist, Birch said. Quoting other Army leaders, he said, “The Army recruits Soldiers, but it retains families.”

December 9, 2008, San Francisco – The 14th Annual Top 10 PR Blunders List, compiled by San Francisco’s Fineman PR, features bailed out big shots, political snafus and a clueless Dept. of Veterans Affairs.

1. AIG All-Expense-Paid Retreats … Paid By YOU

Mere days after receiving an $85 billion federal bailout package, American International Group Inc. dropped nearly half a million dollars on an executive retreat to the posh St. Regis resort, complete with “spa treatments, banquets and golf outings,” according to the Associated Press. Public reaction, as many watched 401(k) and other investments deflate, was heated. Ousted AIG CEO Robert Willumstad condemned the fete as “very inappropriate” when questioned by Congress, and presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said participating executives “should be fired” during a debate with Sen. John McCain. AIG compounded the damage when it proceeded with an $86,000 New England hunting retreat. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo promptly launched a fraud probe, saying “our message to AIG today is simple: The party is over.”

2. AP to Detroit Three: “old way of doing business just won’t fly.”

Already reeling from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, consumers, taxpayers and legislators were deeply offended when the leaders of the nation’s Big Three automakers — General Motors CEO Richard Wagoner, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli and Ford CEO Alan Mulally — flew to Washington in separate corporate jets to ask Congress for $25 billion … without a turnaround plan. PR Week reported that “it made the Big Three appear out of touch, and evoked memories of the AIG retreat controversy.” The Los Angeles Times reported that, “their first attempt was a lemon.” So when the execs made their second foray to Washington to further plead their case, they drove there in hybrid vehicles … and made sure everyone knew it. But Meredith Vieira on Today was unimpressed. “They should have carpooled,” she said.

3. Department of Veterans Affairs says “Shh!” To Veterans’ Problems

In this day of digital justice it’s surprising that some federal officials still believe their emails are private, as when messages between top officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated secrets were being kept about appallingly high suicide attempt rates among veterans. According to the Associated Press, Dr. Ira Katz, top-ranking VA mental health official, emailed colleagues that “12,000 veterans a year attempt suicide while … under [Veterans Affairs] treatment.” Katz wasn’t pushing for reform but hiding data from CBS News, even beginning the email with a “Shh!” Everett A. Chasen, chief communications officer for the VA, wrote that, “I don’t want to give CBS any more numbers on veterans [sic] suicides or attempts than they already have — it will only lead to more questions.” Emails get leaked in most organizations, but the true Blunder is the Department’s disregard for veterans’ well being. Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., chair of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, told CBS News “this is disgraceful … a crime against our nation, our nation’s veterans. [V.A. officials] do not want to come to grips with the reality, with the truth.”

4. Letterman asks McCain, “do you need a ride to the airport?”

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain canceled what would have been his thirteenth appearance on CBS’s Late Night with David Letterman, saying that he was suspending his campaign and “racing to the airport” to tackle the impending financial crisis. Midway through the show, however, Letterman learned that McCain was mere blocks away … sitting down with CBS stablemate Katie Couric. Letterman obtained a live feed of the interview and, joined by stand-in guest Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, remarked at McCain’s expense. McCain’s response, when he did make it onto Late Night a couple weeks later, was apt but unapologetic: “I screwed up.”

5. Nike Just Blew It

When self-described “good, solid” marathoner and elementary school teacher Arien O’Connell unexpectedly clocked the fastest time in October’s San Francisco Women’s Marathon, besting her personal record by over 12 minutes, race sponsor Nike had a golden opportunity to support those who “just do it.” However, Nike only checked times of those in the allegedly “elite” front-running pack; by the time O’Connell realized she had been fastest, all places had been awarded and Nike would not recognize her victory. Later that week, pressured Nike recanted its initial stance, declaring O’Connell “a winner” but not the winner. C.W. Nevius of the San Francisco Chronicle lamented the tepid ending to “what could have been a lovely Cinderella story.” Only after competitor Reebok stepped up to award O’Connell free shoes for a year and a $2,500 donation for her classroom did O’Connell receive her “first place overall” trophy.

6. Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough Corp.: Profits with Side Effects

Prescription for a Blunder: market cholesterol drugs Vytorin and Zetia with a memorable $100 million plus advertising campaign. Withhold study results showing that the combo doesn’t work as claimed … for 21 months. Watch the drugs pull $5.2 billion in revenue in 2007 alone. Side effects, though, may include widespread consumer backlash, around 140 civil class- action lawsuits, and the unwelcome attentions of Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of 35 state attorneys general, according to the Associated Press. Makers Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough Corp. allegedly didn’t release the results due to internal scientific concerns. Matthew Herper of Forbes reported there were “reasons to doubt the result [of the study].” Under pressure, Merck and Schering-Plough pulled their quirky “Food and Family” ads, but dwindling investor confidence still pushed Merck stock down to Vioxx-era levels. Martha Rosenberg of AlterNet.com opined, “Merck is repeating its mistakes … It’s getting tough to find any Merck drug that can hold up to scrutiny.”

7. Mark Penn: Spinning Out of Control

Mark Penn found himself dropped from the chief strategist role in Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign when The Wall Street Journal exposed Penn’s work on behalf of the government of Colombia, a client for whom Penn was also involved in arranging passage of a controversial trade bill opposed by, among others, Clinton herself. Penn was removed from the helm, although his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, continued to provide services to the campaign. He ultimately admitted to an “error in judgment,” but how many of those can one person convincingly admit to? Penn’s other unbelievable missteps throughout the year, including praising McCain attack ads and demeaning Clinton supporters, calling them “downscale voters,” earn him a seat among serial PR blunderers. Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post called Penn “dumber than previously realized” and a “despised, incompetent … microtrending ninnybot.”

8. Senior Obama Campaigner Makes “a Monster” of a Slip

Sometimes a simple goof can be a major gaffe if committed by an insider. For example, Samantha Power, senior foreign policy advisor to presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, called Sen. Hillary Clinton “a monster” in a March interview with UK newspaper The Scotsman, then realized her error and immediately tried to withdraw her comment, claiming “that is off the record.” However, in the dustup to follow, blogger Michael Goldstein of http://www.MondayMorningMediaQuarterback.com noted that, “you can’t do it. There is no off the record.” Many journalists agree, including Gerri Peev, the Scotsman reporter who interviewed Power, who noted that journalists are “not in the business to self-censor … [they are] in the business to print the truth.”

9. “Absolut Mistake,” says PR Week

Swedish vodka-maker Absolut is famed for its clever, well-executed advertising campaigns, but the company hasn’t realized it’s a small world after all. According to PR Week, ads for the Mexican market from the company’s “Absolut World” campaign showing the western U.S. as Mexican territory “courted animosity” and “stirred up negative sentiment from … [those] who complain about the porous U.S. border” after appearing on U.S. blogs. Absolut pulled the offending ads and proffered a public apology on its corporate blogs, but competitor Skyy Vodka capitalized on the situation. According to Ken Wheaton’s Advertising Age blog, Skyy did “what a marketer should do in a situation like this, [taking] advantage of a competitor’s headache” by distributing a humorous press release in which it touts Skyy’s U.S. origins and production. Smart opportunistic marketing … with a twist.

10. Hut, Two, Three, Four, Berkeley Rants Against Our Corps

Berkeley, Calif., has always been known for an anti-establishment atmosphere, one in which free speech and independent thought are held dear. But when the Berkeley City Council denounced local Marine Corps recruiters as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and “sales people known to lie to and seduce minors,” it incited yet another nationally covered culture clash depicting Berkeley’s leadership as hopelessly out of touch. Although individual members of the Council did admit that they may have acted rashly, no apology was ever issued. According to Peter Schrag of the Sacramento Bee, the incident demonstrated “that you can be within shouting distance of one of the world’s great educational institutions and still be terminally stupid.”

 About the Fineman PR Top 10 PR Blunders List

San Francisco-based Fineman PR (http://www.finemanpr.com) assembles the annual PR Blunders List as a reminder that public relations is critical to businesses and organizations. Selections are limited to Americans, American companies or offenses that occurred in America. Selections are limited to avoidable acts or omissions that caused adverse publicity; image damage was done to self, company, society or others; and acts that were widely reported in 2008

December 10, 2008, Kabul, Afghanistan – U.S. Special Forces killed six Afghan police and wounded 13 early Wednesday in a case of mistaken identity by both sides after the police fired on the Americans during an operation against an insurgent commander, officials said.

A U.S. military statement said police fired on the American forces after the troops battled and killed an armed militant in the city of Qalat, the capital of the southern province of Zabul. The Americans returned fire on the police but only later learned their identities. One Afghan civilian was also killed in the exchange.

“Coalition forces deeply regret the incident of mistaken fire,” said Col. Jerry O’Hara, a U.S. military spokesman. “Initial reports indicate this was a tragic case of mistaken identity on both parts.”

Gulab Shah Alikhail, the province’s deputy governor, said U.S. Special Forces carried out an operation in a small village near a police checkpoint on the outskirts of Qalat. The police, thinking it was a Taliban attack, opened fire, he said. Then a helicopter fired on the security post and destroyed it, he said.

The attack collapsed the police station’s roof and damaged a civilian home nearby, said Gilani Khan, the deputy provincial police chief.

“Unfortunately, the Special Forces didn’t inform the police that they were going to the village,” Alikhail said.

U.S. officials quietly admit that they are hesitant to share detailed plans of raids against militant commanders for fear that government officials connected to the Taliban could tip off the militants of the impending operation.

The U.S. said the target of Wednesday’s raid was a militant commander “known to coordinate attacks against coalition forces along Highway One,” Afghanistan’s main highway that circles the country. The statement did not say if that commander had been killed in the operation.

Friendly fire between U.S. or NATO forces and Afghan troops or police happens several times a year. President Hamid Karzai has deplored the deaths of Afghan civilians during U.S. or NATO operations but has said that some friendly fire deaths are inevitable during war.

Officials from the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and U.S. forces traveled from Kabul to Qalat on Wednesday to investigate the deaths.

December 8, 2008 – The Marine Corps left troops in Iraq vulnerable to deadly roadside bombs by failing to answer an urgent request from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, according to an internal Pentagon investigation obtained by The Associated Press. Acquisition officials shelved the February 2005 request for the “MRAPs” (pronounced EM-raps) after Marine leaders decided armored versions of the Humvee were the best answer to the improvised explosive devices that became the signature weapon of the Iraq war. However, the beefier Humvees proved incapable of withstanding the increasingly powerful IEDs.

The AP obtained portions of the investigation by the Pentagon inspector general. It was expected to be released publicly on Tuesday.

The Marine Corps and the other military branches were aware of the threat from mines and roadside bombs and of the commercial availability of MRAPs well before U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003, the report said. Yet nothing was done to acquire the vehicles.

“As a result, the department entered into operations in Iraq without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines,” the report said.

This is the report’s most “damning conclusion,” Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a critic of the military’s wartime procurement practices, said Monday. “It appears that some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain to the families of American troops who were killed or maimed when a lifesaving solution was within reach,” Bond said in an e-mail to the AP.

The inspector general’s nine-month inquiry was the result of complaints by Franz Gayl, a civilian defense official and whistle-blower who had accused the Marine Corps of “gross mismanagement” that led to a nearly two-year delay in shipping the MRAPs to Iraq.

Had the MRAPs been built and sent after commanders first asked for them in early 2005, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented, Gayl charged in a study that was first reported in February by The Associated Press.

The Pentagon IG report found no evidence of criminal negligence in the failure to provide the MRAPs when the vehicles were first requested. The portions of the report obtained by the AP do not directly link the lack of MRAPs to deaths of service members.

In a statement, the Marine Corps said it would be inappropriate to comment on the report until it is officially released. However, the Marine Corps noted that it requested the inquiry and worked closely with the investigators. It also said the service has greatly improved its system for responding to requests from troops for badly needed combat gear.

MRAPs weigh as much as 40 tons and have a V-shaped hull that deflects the blast out and away from the crew. More than 11,000 of the vehicles have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan since May 2007 after Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared MRAPs the Pentagon’s No. 1 acquisition priority. The heavy trucks have been very effective at protecting American forces from IEDs.

The February 2005 urgent request for 1,169 MRAPs was signed by then-Brig. Gen. Dennis Hejlik. The Marines could not continue to take “serious and grave casualties” caused by IEDs when a solution was commercially available, wrote Hejlik, who was a commander in western Iraq from June 2004 to February 2005.

Yet despite the stark wording of Hejlik’s plea, the request was mishandled and eventually lost in bureaucracy. The inspector general puts most of blame on officials at Marine Corps Command Development Command. Headquartered at Quantico, Va., the command decides what gear to buy.

After receiving Hejlik’s request, the command didn’t pursue it aggressively. A few months later, then-Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee decided the armored Humvee, known as the M1114, was the best and mostly quickly available solution to the IED threat. By August, the Combat Development Command had dropped Hejlik’s request altogether even though the armored Humvee “did not adequately protect Marines from under-body IED attacks, which were increasing in Iraq,” the inspector general said.

Hagee, however, told investigators that while he wanted the armored Humvees, he didn’t intend for that to preclude the purchase of MRAPs or stop the Combat Development Command from responding to Hejlik’s request.

The report also challenged Hejlik’s later interpretation of what he meant by the urgent request. In July 2007, he said the Marine Corps’ decision to buy armored Humvees was the right one. His intent in signing the request was for the Marines to buy the MRAPs within two years to five years, not immediately.

But the inspector general disputed that, saying Hejlik’s initial request “clearly indicated that the requirement for MRAP-type vehicles was priority 1 and urgently needed.”

Gayl is the science and technology adviser in the Marine Corps’ plans, policies and operations department.

When Gayl’s study was disclosed in February, the Marine Corps called it a personal opinion at odds with the facts. Public affairs officers stressed his January study had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor. The work was pre-decisional and did not reflect the views of the Marine Corps, they said.

December 9, 2008 – In the Bush administration, General Eric K. Shinseki committed the crime of truth-telling: He told the Senate in early 2003 that maintaining order in Iraq would take far more US troops than Donald Rumsfeld planned for. It cost him his job as Army chief of staff. That same virtue, honesty, should stand him in good stead now that President-elect Barack Obama has nominated him to be secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The choice is a stinging rebuke not just of Rumsfeld and President Bush for failing to take Shinseki’s advice on the Iraq war, but also of the administration’s weak effort to solve the medical, educational, emotional, and employment problems that veterans are having in returning to civilian life. Just as the Bush administration thought it could oust Saddam Hussein and create a peaceful, democratic Iraq with a bare-bones force, it has tried to skimp on veterans services.

If confirmed, Shinseki will face the challenge first of reducing the unconscionable six months to a year that it now takes many veterans to qualify for disability coverage, or to transition from military medical care to the veterans’ system. Also, veterans health facilities often lack the psychiatrists and psychologists needed to treat and counsel veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries or post-traumatic stress disorder. The new secretary will have to oversee implementation of the expanded GI Bill educational benefits that Congress wisely approved earlier this year.

Military leaders and veterans organizations have hailed the nomination. Shinseki, who lost most of one foot in combat in Vietnam and had to persuade military doctors to let him return to duty, said discharged service members “deserve a smooth, error-free, no-fail, benefits-assured transition into our ranks as veterans.” That is a tall order.

While no one doubts that Shinseki would speak up if he thought Congress or the administration’s own numbers-crunchers were not giving him the money he needs, there is concern that his low-key style might not be up to the formidable task of shaking up the department’s bureaucracy. Critics said that, as Army chief of staff in 2002 and 2003, Shinseki should have fought harder to get Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to plan for the several hundred thousand troops that Shinseki predicted would be needed to occupy Iraq.

But in that dispute, Shinseki could not count on the backing of the president. Obama made clear in nominating him Sunday that Shinseki would have that support. That should put some steel in his management of the department. It badly needs a forceful advocate at its head.