Soldiering on for Wesley Clark

2008-12-08T02:48:40Z

Clark on the Economic Crisis

2008-09-20T20:33:58Z

General Wesley Clark speaks at the New America Foundation on the subject, "America Needs Urgent Action: No Nonsense Thoughts on America's Economic Crisis and National Security Dilemmas."

Military officers for Hillary Clinton

2008-03-19T18:59:25Z

I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate most capable and most likely to withdraw our forces from Iraq in a manner that maximizes their safety and minimizes the long-term threat both to the region and to our national interests. Apparently, these distinguished men and women have reached a similar conclusion. Or listen to this conference call from the campaign, courtesy of Taylor Marsh's blog. Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief, according to a press release dated March 1, 2008. * General Wesley Clark * General John M. Shalikashvili * General Henry Hugh Shelton * General Johnnie E. Wilson * Admiral William Owens * Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard * Lt. Gen. Robert Gard * Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy * Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick * Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath * Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak * Major General Roger R. Blunt * Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr. * Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr. * Major General Paul D. Eaton * Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr. * Major General Antonio M. Taguba * Rear Admiral Connie Mariano * Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman * Rear Admiral David Stone * Brigadier General Michael Dunn * Brigadier General Belisario Flores * Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote * Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr * Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard * Brigadier General Preston Taylor * Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. * Brigadier General Jack Yeager

Conason: Limbaugh’s Cowardly Smear

2007-10-04T16:14:52Z

After you read the editorial that follows, please join General Clark's campaign to remove Rush from the Armed Forces Radio Network, where our tax dollars provide him unfettered access to a captive audience of soldiers and sailors stationed overseas.

Limbaugh’s Cowardly Smear by Joe Conason Published on October 2, 2007, in the October 8, 2007, edition of The New York Observer The controversy over what Rush Limbaugh meant when he uttered the phrase “phony soldiers” last week isn’t just another broadcast sideshow. As the political power of conservatism declines, the symbolic authority of figures such as Mr. Limbaugh is likewise shrinking. That is why he backs away from his own words, rips them from context by selectively editing his program’s transcript and insists he didn’t demean soldiers and veterans who dissent from the Bush White House war policy—as he and his fellow partisans have done so many times before.

]]> This revealing episode began on Sept. 26 during a conversation between Mr. Limbaugh and “Mike,” a caller who identified himself as an active-duty soldier and supporter of the Iraq war, who warned against the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops as urged by a previous caller “because Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.” At that point the host interjected, “There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even—if—the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull—what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t—I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home. Save the—keep the troops safe,’ or whatever. It’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” Replied Mike, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” That was when Mr. Limbaugh said: “The phony soldiers.” Two days later, under heavy critical fire for using those words to describe critics of the war who have served in uniform, he claimed to be the victim of a “smear.” He served up a neatly trimmed transcript of the Sept. 26 program, which cut more than a minute and a half of yakking to make it seem as if his “phony soldiers” reference was intended solely for an antiwar activist who had allegedly masqueraded as an Army Ranger after washing out of basic training. That falsified transcript has provided fodder for Mr. Limbaugh’s defenders, a motley assortment of bloggers, Fox News personalities, and a Republican congressman from Georgia who has actually introduced a resolution commending the radio blowhard. Not content with insulting the troops, the Limbaugh clones seem to think any soldier who examines the transcript will be too dumb to figure out how they have tampered with it. It is equally telling that both Mr. Limbaugh and his defenders change the original phrase “phony soldiers” and say “phony soldier” instead—because the plural belies his alibi and makes his nasty intention so plain. Today he whines because Media Matters for America, the progressive watchdog group, caught and publicized his slur. But he cannot escape what the audio proves he said. Only in a media environment where conservatives have long felt exempt from serious scrutiny would Mr. Limbaugh still feel free to mock the military service of those who disagree with him. He is, after all, a certified chickenhawk who cheered on the Vietnam War as it ground up tens of thousands of young Americans, but saw no reason why he should serve. His local draft board in Cape Girardeau, Mo., a town where his family enjoyed great political influence, granted him a 1-Y deferment after he dropped out of college and forfeited his student deferment. Explaining how he escaped the draft, he has cited both a “bad knee” and a cyst on his backside that supposedly rendered him medically unfit for service. Despite that undistinguished record, however, he has never hesitated to denigrate the service and patriotism of Senator John Kerry, former Senator Tom Daschle and other Democrats who volunteered to wear the nation’s uniform. He called Mr. Daschle “Hanoi Tom,” and he spent many hours repeating the “Swift boat” lies when Mr. Kerry ran for president in 2004. And now he insinuates that the troops and vets who question this war are “phony soldiers.” No doubt what really worries Mr. Limbaugh and his right-wing comrades is that more and more of those who bravely serve America abroad, from foot soldiers to flag officers, have begun to voice their anger at the reckless and dishonest policies that have cost them and their comrades so dearly. Leaders of Vote Vets, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organized in support of smarter military and security policy, have angrily challenged Mr. Limbaugh to repeat his slur to their faces—something he is most unlikely to do. Thanks to all the veterans with the courage to speak out—no matter what their affiliation or opinion—it is no longer so easy for the Limbaugh crowd to claim that the military and the flag as their exclusive property. That illegitimate seizure of everyone’s patriotic heritage is coming to an ignominious end.

The War as We Saw It

2007-08-20T17:16:49Z

A New York Times Op-Ed by troops from Iraq:

The War as We Saw It by Staff Sergeants (E6) Jeremy A. Murphy and Yance T. Gray, Sergeants (E5) Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, and Edward Sandmeier, and Specialist (E4) Buddhika Jayamaha Published: August 19, 2007 Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

]]> The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense. A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families. As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias. Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda. However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave. In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force. Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side. Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux. The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment. Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support. Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run. At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal. In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.” In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal. Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities. We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Wes Clark's Memorial Day Message

2007-05-28T18:18:15Z

On Monday, our nation will observe Memorial Day -- a day which is incredibly solemn and sacred, especially to those of us who served our nation with military service. For one day, WesPAC and our friends at VoteVets.org and the National Security Network will put politics completely aside, and stand in solidarity with the rest of our nation to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or of another party or no party at all, we are all still Americans, and on this day, we should solely be focused on honoring those who died in service. We're also asking that people not protest at Memorial Day events; we have 364 other days to argue policy and politics, but this day belongs to the fallen and their memories. Today, please consider making a donation to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (http://www.fallenheroesfund.org), which is dedicated to helping the families of those who died in service. The Intrepid Fund has already provided $60 million in aid to families, but can only continue to do so with your support. Above all, take a day to learn more about someone who died in defense of America. If you're at a parade or prayer service and you see a veteran or military family member, ask him or her who they are honoring. Learn more about that hero, so their memory can endure. Too often, we talk about the fallen in terms of numbers. We forget, each of those numbers were real people, with real lives, and real families. The names on the thousands of memorials across America are more than letters etched in stone -- they are lives lost with honor. The best way we can honor those who sacrificed their lives is to ensure that the memory of who they were as human beings is never forgotten. Please, on Memorial Day, do your part to ensure their memory lives on. Thank you for your support of our troops and veterans. Sincerely, Wes Clark Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran, VoteVets.org Rand Beers, USMC (ret.), National Security Network

More from General Batiste

2007-05-14T16:36:30Z

The second in the most recent VoteVets ad series has been released today. But before you watch General Eaton, first read this from General John Batiste who, in the first ad, looked into the camera and said, “Mr. President, you did not listen.” Off camera, he elaborated at a press conference, as reported in the New York Times:

...General Batiste said he chose to go public with his critique of the war effort only after 30 years of honoring the Army’s rules of silence. He said it was that time commanding 22,000 troops in combat, in 2004 and 2005, that convinced him that American fighting in Iraq was short of vision as well as troops. “There was never enough. There was never a reserve,” he said.

]]> “Again and again, we had to move troops by as many as 200 miles out of our area of operations to support another sector. We would pull troops out of contact with the enemy and move them into contact with the enemy somewhere else. The minute we’d leave, the insurgents would pick up on that, and kill everybody who had been friendly.” And from an AP report of the same conference::

"Our strategy in Iraq today is more of the same, a slow grind to nowhere which totally ignores the reality of Iraq and the lessons of history," Batiste said. "Our president ignores sound military advice and surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates."

And what message has General Batiste, as well as dozens of other senior military officers, tried to deliver to the President and his administration?

As described by General Batiste, the message is not antiwar; it argues that continuing the war in Iraq as a civil, sectarian conflict that cannot be won by outside forces is crippling the Army and the Marine Corps. It does not deny the danger of violent Islamic extremism, he says, but contends that the war in Iraq prevents the armed services from preparing to battle other global security threats. And it says that if terrorism, and especially terrorists armed with unconventional weapons, truly threaten America’s very survival, then the rest of the country — not just the military — should be called to sacrifice.

The president has told us over and over that he is listening to his generals. But the only generals with access to the Oval Office have been those hand-picked precisely because they are saying the things the president wants to hear. General Eric Shinseki told Congress that post-war Iraq would take more manpower than the Pentagon civilians wanted to admit. He was put out to pasture. Generals Abizaid and Casey recommended against the latest surge. They're gone too. It's one of those "a tree falls in the forest" things, but in reverse. Because if you shield yourself from the trees that are falling, it doesn't matter whether you are listening or not; there will be no sound to hear. Now please watch General Paul Eaton, who was a commanding general in Iraq, responsible for training the Iraqi Army. And while you're at it, throw some money VoteVets' way so that he, General Batiste, and next week General Clark, can reach a national audience. Don’t let the trees keep falling without a sound because there's no one around to hear them.

They can't handle the truth

2007-05-11T18:05:16Z

Don't the Republicans complain that if the American public could hear about the good stuff going on in Iraq, we would be more supportive of the president's war policy? That it is Democrats who have led the American people to believe the war is a lost cause by making sure the liberal media only tells us when bad stuff happens? So how come the Bush administration is now prohibiting enlisted soldiers, "junior" officers (05 and below!), and even career DoD civilians -- in other words, anyone who's not a political appointee -- from testifying before Congress? According to yesterday's Boston Globe,

Robert L. Wilkie , a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers below the rank of colonel from appearing in hearings, restricting testimony to high-ranking officers and civilians appointed by President Bush. The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.

Too bad, C-SPAN viewers. No more first hand accounts from regular folks. From now on, you only get the sanitized version of events that the White House wants you to see. Actually, it's worse than that.]]> At a closed-door hearing a few days after Wilkie's memo was distributed, Defense Department lawyers sought to apply the guidelines to the testimony of three Army officers -- a captain, a major, and a lieutenant colonel -- set to testify about their first-hand experience training Iraqi security forces. A few minutes into the proceedings, a representative from the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel tried to apply the new provisions. Speaking from the audience, he declared that the officers could not participate if the meeting was being recorded for a transcript -- a regular practice in congressional hearings. The panel's Democratic chairman, Representative Martin Meehan of Lowell, and ranking Republican W. Todd Aken of Missouri both insisted a transcript would be kept and the Pentagon entourage, including the officers, "theatrically stormed out of the room," said one attendant. So why are they keeping the soldiers on the ground -- the very people who have been there, done that -- from telling Congress, and by extension the citizens whom Congress represents, what is really going on? What are they trying to hide? If there's more good stuff than bad, don't they want us to know? Don't they trust the troops to tell us? Or have they finally figured out that the signature characteristic of the American soldier is to say precisely what he thinks, feels, and knows to be true. And that men and women who have faced enemy fire are not easily intimidated by a pack of Washington bureaucrats.

VoteVets does it again!

2007-05-10T20:42:16Z

Once more mega-kudos are in order to VoteVets, one of the few veterans organizations that puts the welfare of the troops ahead of partisan politics. Jon Soltz -- Iraq War Veteran, Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets -- writes:

The first in the series of three ads features VoteVets.org Advisory Board Member, Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this time frame, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican. If you like this ad, then you're going to love what we have coming up in about a week, from Major General Paul Eaton. And, then the ad featuring General Clark after that. That's fitting, because it is General Clark who paved the way for other retired brass to speak out.

Now watch the video....]]> Wow,. Pretty damned effective. And although there will be those who try to swiftboat him, General Batiste has an unimpeachable record. Since he is not and has never been a Democrat, and is not running for office or looking for a political appointment, there can be no political or personal advantage in this for him. Fact is, he passed Rumsfeld's loyalty screening test to receive his second star, successfully commanded a division in combat, and was offered a third star with a plum assignment. In other words, General Batiste was in reach of the highest levels of the U.S. military. But he chose to resign instead. And now he chooses to speak for the soldiers who cannot. Of course, caring about the troops' welfare is probably not a partisan event for any but the most hard-boiled cynics and a relatively small number of career politicians... if those aren't redundant concepts. But recognizing what's best for the troops, what they need most, too often is. Especially among those who have never actually been a troop. Humans have an amazing talent to believe exactly what they choose to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. And most Americans want to believe our president is telling the truth when he says he knows that an enemy poses an immediate threat, or that he's doing everything he can to protect the men and women he puts in harm's way, or that he listens to his generals on the ground. But those of us who know something about the capabilities of our enemies, not to mention what it means to be in harm's way, know better than to believe what our president tells us any more. Now we must listen to the generals who have the strength to speak out and lend their knowledge and experience to the righteous public debate about war and peace and defending America. And we must help our fellow Americans learn how to listen as well.

Message to Congress: Hang Tough!

2007-05-10T03:08:16Z

Sure, Americans would love to see their political leaders come together in a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. BUT that doesn't mean we want you folks in Congress to roll over and give the President whatever he wants. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, a whopping 70% of respondents, garnered from all political parties, as well as no party at all, said that Democratic leaders in Congress are either "not going far enough" or are "handling it about right" in "challenging George W.Bush’s policies in Iraq." This compares to a mere 23% who thought Reid and Pelosi are "going too far." Moreover, the same poll found that a full 78% think Congress should have "some" or "a lot" of influence over the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq, compared to only 18% who responded either "not much" or "none at all." So hang in there, Democrats. Be strong, show some starch, and do what you know is right. That's all any of us can ask, and usually all we ever do.

Who's fighting the war

2007-04-20T19:44:08Z

Another "Fighting Dem," Congressman (and retired Colonel) Jack Murtha nails it:

Interesting to hear the gentleman say 'we,' 'we fight,' 'we aren't gonna give up,' 'we aren't gonna surrender.' Let me tell you something. We aren't fighting this war. It's the troops overseas... Don't tell me we're fighting in this air conditioned office. We're not fighting this war; they're fighting it! And I'm proud of every one of them!"

(C-SPAN, by way of BradBlog.com)

A "Fighting Dem" keeps on fighting

2007-04-13T23:53:23Z

When John McCain wants to find out how things are going over in Iraq, he flies over in a military aircraft on the taxpayers' dime, walks around the Green Zone with a maximum of US military protection, also on the taxpayers' dime, and talks to soldiers and marines hand-picked by the chain of command to answer his questions. One wonders what he expects to hear, and whether it isn't something like what he wants to hear, but I guess it's hard to fault him for not knowing any real GIs up close and personal. Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy, on the other hand, can talk to the very real soldiers he served with in Iraq, some of whom are still there. According to an op/ed by Francis Clines in last Sunday's New York Times, one of those soldiers is Sergeant Juan Santiago of the 82nd Airborne. Hooah SGT Santiago.]]> third tour in four years, with a wife and two kids back home at Ft Bragg. Murphy reports of his recent trip in-country:

Sure, I met with General Petraeus, but I had lunch with Santiago and checked with the other guys who could give me the straight story on what they’re seeing out there... The guys said it’s like Groundhog Day all over, four years later.

Apparently Murphy didn't confine himself to just the soldier he knew and a circle of their close buddies. He also "cites a tearful female sergeant who sought him out to deliver a three-page plea to 'speak truth to power' in Washington." How close do you think she could have gotten to John McCain if she had tried? One thing there's no doubt about is that Congressman Murphy is carrying out the young sergeant's charge. Cline continues:

It was his honor to be a junior House whip — a point man, in Army lingo — in the Democrats’ recent passage of a war budget that included timelines for an exit from Iraq. But that’s hardly enough in the lawmaker’s speaking to power.

It's worth interjecting here that the funding proposal, as passed by the House and endorsed by General Wes Clark and other military experts, does a lot more than set "timelines for an exit." It also requires the administration to provide units with the equipment, training and down-time they need before they deploy, and to individuals the medical care they've been promised after they return. If that's what Republicans mean when they say Congress wants to "micromanage the war," then that's precisely what Congress must do. Because micromanagement is better than no management at all. I prefer to call it making President Bush do the job he should have been doing all along. In a word, oversight. In several, supporting the troops. More from Cline:

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have called me and my colleagues unpatriotic for that vote," Mr. Murphy said, admitting this still had his Irish up. "With all due respect to Mr. Cheney who had — what was it? — ‘better things to do’ during Vietnam and got four deferments, I don’t think he’s in a position to question my patriotism."

But questioning his patriotism and even his service were indeed part of the campaign against Murphy last year when the Republican incumbent dragged out a couple of Iraq veterans, both conveniently ignorant of what Murphy's duties actually were. They called him a REMF (if you don't know what that means, you'll have to google it) who had no clue what real "front-line fighters" think or feel. One was an Air Force major who flew F-16s out of Kuwait from January to May 2006 (but now works as a Philly GOP party operative). Now, I don't mean to disparage anyone's service -- everyone in uniform plays their part and takes the risks that come with it -- but where does a fast-mover flyboy in a war where the enemy has neither airplanes nor tripple-A come off accusing ANY Army officer of being a REMF? Yes, I know, I digress. But few things anger me more than these right-wing veterans who can't seem to grasp the concept that a swiftboat attack against one veteran is an attack against every veteran. Max Cleland's missing limbs, John Kerry's combat medals, Wes Clark's 38 years of troop command and leadership, credentials as simple and straight-forward as the very rank earned by the eight flag officers who called for Rumsfeld's ouster... these are all matters of public record, and they are all things I've heard challenged by Republicans who would have us believe they "support the troops." Anyone, of any party or no party at all, has a right to criticize and disagree with these men, even a duty to do so if it's what they believe. But NO ONE can question the public record without casting doubt on every war wound, every medal, every achievement or promotion earned by every soldier, sailor, airman or marine in every war past, present or in years to come. Not much support in that. So thank you, Patrick Murphy, for standing up to the GOP. Both when they attacked your record during your campaign, and now in speaking truth to power as the young sergeant asked you to do. There is so much you can be proud of in this speech: (Tip of the hat to Nicole Belle at Crooks & Liars) Just as you make proud those of us who heeded General Clark's endorsement to help put you in Congress and will be there to fight for your re-election in 2008, just as you're fighting for us today.

Patrick has seen up close the dedication and bravery of our men and women in uniform and he has seen the human cost of bad civilian leadership and flawed strategy in war. His perspective as a solider, teacher and family man is much needed today in government.

The surge is working for some people

2007-04-08T17:39:53Z

(Steve Sack/Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

I learned something today

2007-04-06T05:55:17Z

I was watching a forum on C-SPAN about presidential campaign politics. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former New York governor Mario Cuomo each spoke at Cooper Union, followed by a question and answer session led by Tim Russert of Meet the Press. I learned I've been giving Newt Gingrich WAY too much credit.]]> the C-SPAN video doesn't seem to work. But from what I remember, Gingrich said he didn't accept the argument that the military is too over-stretched to deal with Iran because the admiral in command of CENTCOM has two aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf to prove the Navy can do the job. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but have you ever heard of any sailors consolidating an objective and occupying a piece of ground? No one asked him that question, of course (and yes, I know a carrier group has marines on board, but not enough for this mission and it's not what he meant anyway). But Gingrich must have heard it in his own head, because he said, quickly and without prompting (as quoted by his own website), “I don’t want to invade Iran, I didn’t want to occupy Iraq. I want to use military force decisively, immediately … and as indirectly as possible.” And there you have it. Just bomb Iran with no plan to back it up with any ground force. Can't these people learn anything? What does it take to make them understand that you cannot bomb people into submission? It didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work for Israel in Lebanon. Even in Kosovo, widely understood as the first successful air war, Milosevic didn't surrender until ground forces were threatened, and our military commander, General Clark, was smart enough to plan for enough NATO forces to occupy the region after he did. It's probably worth noting that his CinC and the NATO Secretary General were smart enough to give them to him. Once upon a time, I would have taken those smarts for granted, but they seem to be missing in our current administration. Every second lieutenant knows that it takes boots on the ground to hold ground. People aren't intimidated by superior technology and overwhelming firepower. They just hunker down and wait it out. And they get mad. Does anyone imagine for a minute that any amount of bombing would cause Americans to accept whatever some foreign power wanted to dish out to us? There's also the possibility that Gingrich knows exactly what the limitations of air power are, but is trying to "talk tough" about Iran in an attempt to pander to the Republican base, perhaps in anticipation of a presidential run. But whatever the case, he showed me he's just another Republican chickenhawk, who would play war without having the slightest concept of what military force can and cannot accomplish, or who is willing to subordinate military reality to ideology and political expediency.