Mr.Arkin,The military can,t prepare for every GD thing that happens in war,we addapt to the situations as they happen,corect we did,t have all the hummvees w/extra armor,but things have improved,when was the last time you were there wearing "kevlar"?? go there and spend a month w/the USMC,or the 101st,and maybe a month w/a SF unit..and talk with the combat typas,that let you and your libs"spew" your hate of our troops,when you claim to "support the troops" what have you donei the last year to support them??you need to thank them for your right to bad mouth them at every writing..

To maddog56: You are right on almost every count, but you are suggesting we commit the same mistake we have historically committed every time we take control of a crisis,(and we haven't even controlled this one yet). To histerically call for demilitarization and for getting rid of our ability to project power is a tragic mistake that we have committed time and time again, to our peril.
Let's not be radical nor extreme. This crisis was not entirely of our making, but I do agree with the fact that Bush has made it infinitely worse than it ought to be. Whether we like it or not, we are the big boy on the block, and we should behave reasonably and in good faith. But at the same time we need to have the means to deal with those who do not understand either of those approaches.
We precipitously disarmed in 1919 after the war, only to have to deal with the Axis 20 years later, from a very weak initial position. Same thing happened in 1950 during the Korean situation. We were caught with our pants down, because five years earlier we succumbed to the very idealistic, naive, and frankly idiotic notion that nobody would rain on our parade again.
Now you and those like you in the far left, (Kucinich and co.), are demanding we do the same. History repeats itself, and the only thing that changes is our willingness to learn from it and adapt. Fundamentalist Islam will not disappear anytime soon, and they will most certainly not change their view of us. We will have to deal with the threat they represent. Would you want to do it from a position of weakness?

Arkin, you have balls to take this issue on. Criticising the Army in America is practically religious blasphemy.

Ross Taylor needs to check his fact. General Eric Shinseki was the Chief of Staff of the Army not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld announced Shinseki--Army VCSA Jack Keene, in the winter 2002, General Shinseki made his statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in the winter of 2003. It should also be noted that the announced replacement chooses for personal reasons not to take the job. Mr. Arkin has written a thought-provoking article that as a career military officer (30 yrs Army) I find truthful in some aspects and wrong in other.

NO ONE is going to like what I have to say.

Only one mistake has been made in the Iraq/Afghan debacle. That was the invasions themselves. The invasions never should have happened. That the American people bought into these wars so easily, I was literally brought to tears. Why was it so obvious to me, but not to so many others, that these wars were wrong? Why was I one of the few who saw that Bush's GWOT was to be just like our war on drugs--never ending, very destructive and doomed to failure. Bin Laden has made it very clear why al Qaeda hates the U.S.--he simply wants the U.S. to stop supporting oppressive governments in largely Muslim countries. End our occupations of those countries. I am quite sure that bin Laden is far more pragmatic than George Bush. Change a few words in a Bush speech on terrorism and he sounds very much like bin Laden. The difference is that I think we can actually bargain with bin Laden. Bush listens to no one. In short, why not give bin Laden a chance to prove himself--we have nothing to lose.

But Bush administration mistakes in general:

*Katrina/FEMA is a perfect model for how dysfunctional/incompetent the Bush administration has been and continues to be. Ill-advised and bungled invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; preparation for and response to Katrina(FEMA). FEMA does appear to be at least partially repaired, but these things are an ongoing process.

*The concealment of the actual numbers of soldiers injured in the two wars we should not be fighting. The manner in which the capture of Jessica Lynch was reported (a complete lie) and the manner in which the death of Pat Tillman was killed (turns out it was friendly fire---maybe). That's just to name the two most obvious attempts to lie in order to incite people to new heights of jingoism. Let's not forget the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein--a staged event in which a U.S. tank actually pulled the statue down with very few Iraqis present.

*The Gonzalez firing of U.S. Attorneys for no apparent reason.

*The fact that we have made life more difficult for most people in Afghanistan and Iraq--the majority of them just want us out of their countries. And I think more of them will pick up their guns to fight against the U.S. for _their_ countries as many do now. E.g. we think first of the 3200 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, but our actions have led to the death of 10s of thousands (or more) of Afghans and Iraqis. What about their lives?

*Our puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and our permanent military bases in those countries! We've never planned to do a complete withdrawal. We're there for good.

*U.S. torturing detainees and lying about it. Wiretapping of Americans and lying about it.

*The crisis of the moment in the treatment of our injured veterans at Water Reed and elsewhere. Most of these soldiers will _never_ recover fully--either psychologically or physically.

*The biggest failure during the Bush administration is the failure of the American people to demand Bush's head. Either our congressmen should get a clue and impeach Bush/Cheney NOW or the American people should march on every congressmens office and well as the White House. Give Bush no place to hide. Force him to face the damage he has done. Force him to resign...a bloodless coupe. He has never been held responsible at anytime during his adult life. It's high time he was held responsible.

This is the big one: Reduce military spending by 90%. We don't need to spend nearly as much as we do. We have pressing social problems at home and a world that is in crisis. And I don't want an Army that can invade a country with impunity. The U.S. should pay heavily in terms of lives lost for invading other countries. How else can we avoid unnecessary wars? Only defending our borders should be relatively painless. Otherwise, the U.S. will be in war after war after war...simply because it can do so w/o little or pain. I'll say it one more time...I know of no other country that has been involved: in more wars; in the subversion of more governments; the overthrow of more legitimate governments; assassination attempts, then the U.S. All the good will we built up in WWII has been squandered and our main ally is a washed-up third world country we call Great Britain.

Harry Hill's post suggests that it's not only the long-serving military officers who feel their services crap on them, it's the long-serving noncoms as well. Civilians of course continue to be whipped into line by appeals to patriotism, which have the effect of glorifying the service while largely abandoning the service personnel -- see the recent Walter Reed stories.

Reverting to Rumsfeld: few seem to recognize the fact that whatever is going on in Guantanamo Bay -- nobody seems to know all that much -- it used to be justified by the famous on-camera Rumsfeld remark of the prisoners: "They're all killers." Wasn't true then, and ain't true now.

Most of the Guantanamo prisoners seem to have been returned to their homelands with no stain on their characters, and no recompense for the false arrest and kidnaping, either. Most had been literally bought for cash in foreign nations -- just like slaves.

Rumsfeld seems never to have retracted his, uh, mistaken claim. Sweet land of liberty.

After serving (slaving) 20 years in the Army, everybody is missing the point. All the years, the Army has crapped on me--and other enlisted men-in overtime. Officers are the new aristocracy. They are in for money and promotions. All the officers I have met and taught in Radar, did not want to know anything...and, in reality, they had no need to know as they did NOTHING.
Please, interview enlisted people OFF
camera.
Just wonder why FEW officers get killed in Iraq.

On the plantation: That's because the decisions for how to allocate our defense resources have been left to those who think of weapons as "toys," much as our military fighting people have been reduced to "pushpins" on a map in Washington.

Sad to say, but our "fighting forces" are just pawns in the world chess game for oil resources.

Mr Arkin,

You wrote: "Not equipping soldiers at the basic and personal level, necessitating -- as the mountain of letters I've received attest to - that soldier's families' ship to them often expensive goods, gear that has become essential for the war the Army couldn't anticipate."

But... but... but... you earlier said that soldiers were receiving "obscene amenities"!

Which is it? Your legions of devoted fans are awaiting your continued keen analysis...

*chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

Incompetence and politicization--whether in the military or FEMA or U.S. attorneys' offices--is the hallmark of this administration.

I think we'll be uncovering incredible amounts of faulty recording in the military records for many years for issues like injuries, disabled vets, emotional or psychological damage. We have significantly damaged a whole generation (or two) of our future.

In the decades preparatory to this war, the Army was not ever consistently the centerpiece of our national defense or power-projection capability. An obvious consequence is the huge draw-down of the National Guard when ground forces are in such demand.

Any grand criticisms need to be shoved up a couple of notches, putting the light on all the intellectuals who influenced our defense priorities for so long.

The Army and the Marines have a very tough job today; and we have not done half as much as we should to train and equip them, including development of new innovated technologies to deal with the present war.

Am I alone in feeling that we somehow are stuck in keeping ground forces in a retarded 20th century mode? Instead, the deep well of money goes to activities which enable domestic overseers to play with our civil liberties from behind computer screens.

It is fouled up, politically, but not because of the Army or Marines. Their level of service is humbling to the rest of us. We cannot have them quit, but we do not provide what they require. Anger is in order, but the intelligent target is not our ground forces.

Lydia, your hero is doing what he chose to do. And when you work where people carry guns, people die. That's just the way it is.

He's compensated fairly for the career he's chosen (better than many teachers). Plus, his family receives safe, clean, decent housing, either provided or paid for with tax-free funds (in my area, that alone puts you above the poverty level). He gets extra pay and tax benefits for time "in country". Add free or reduced-cost family medical, reduced-cost food at the commissary (average 25% savings), and retirement pension for life.

Put the Pentagon in the field in Iraq in tents. Have COlonels and generals go back to leading patrols.

Watch the changes happen...

"Again and again, they demonstrated that they were more interested in tomorrow's budget and Washington lunches than soldier resources and hot meals"

Aren't soldier resources and hot meals things that you consider to be "obscene amenities"?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201299.html

Halliburton Chief's Move to Dubai Evokes Warnings on Hill

By Steven Mufson and Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A02

Ever since Erle P. Halliburton established the New Method Oil Well Cementing Co. in Oklahoma in 1919, his name has been associated with American corporate know-how in the oilfield services business.

But over the weekend, the company now known as Halliburton announced that its chief executive, Dave Lesar, would move to a new corporate headquarters in Dubai to focus on business in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia.

The announcement sparked warnings from members of Congress, who suspected that the company once run by Vice President Cheney was trying to trim its tax bill and remove itself from the limelight here, where it has come under fire about the way it obtained and executed government contracts, especially those connected to troubled reconstruction projects in Iraq.

"The CEO of Halliburton has decided to leave this country to move his offices to Dubai because he says it is 'a great business center.' That is a bizarre announcement," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Dorgan, who said he would seek hearings on the move, added: "I want to know, is Halliburton trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay U.S. taxes? Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?"

People familiar with investigations carried out by the Pentagon and special Iraq inspectors general said there were many aspects of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq that have not yet come under full scrutiny. With Democrats in control of Congress, further hearings on those contracts are likely. Last year, Halliburton received $6.1 billion of Defense Department contracts, the sixth-largest total of any company. In 2005, it received $5.8 billion.

Halliburton announced last month that it would spin off its 81 percent stake in KBR, its subsidiary that received more than 90 percent of its Pentagon contracts in 2006. Securities analysts said the move would aid Halliburton's stock price, which has languished at lower price-to-earnings ratios than other oilfield services companies.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1832.shtml

Transpartisan coalition calls for whistleblower hearings; petition with strong left-right support headed to Capitol Hill

By Jesse R. Benton
Liberty Coalition

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Liberty Coalition, a transpartisan public policy group dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy today sent a petition signed by 30 liberal, libertarian and conservative groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizen Outreach, OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Government Accountability Project, Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Censorship, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, urging prompt hearings on the case of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, brought charges of wrongdoing, criminal activity, cover-ups and national security threats inside the agency following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Edmonds was promptly fired, which she asserts was an act of retaliation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then used the state secrets privilege to shut down court proceedings in her case and prevent Congress from exploring the matter. Civil Liberties advocates argue that Edmonds's case in an example of other instances where whistleblowers who tried to inform Congress and taxpayers about national security threats were intimidated silenced and retaliated against.

"Mrs. Edmonds is not a national security threat but a national hero and the American public deserves to hear the truth of her case. Congress must act and act now by having public hearings. Without them, the cover-ups and criminal activities will just continue," said Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition.

Mr. Ostrolenk was supported in his contentions by Liberty Coalition partner Stephen Kohn, president of the National Whistleblower Center, who said, "Congress must hear from Mrs. Edmonds and others who corroborated her case -- we cannot wait until after another attack to learn about threats to our security."

This popular position is echoed by Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group that signed the appeal brief in Mrs. Edmonds case, who said, "The issues surrounding the Edmonds case are so significant that Congress must hold hearings to investigate the government's actions."

The issues reported by Ms. Edmonds include:

* Espionage activities within the FBI, DOD, and the Department of State.

* Cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse of protecting certain diplomatic relations.

* Deliberate mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI translators and management.

* Foreign entities bribing government officials and elected representatives.

Civil Liberty advocates assert that these issues point to an abuse of power, a criminal conspiracy and attempts to cover-up wrong doing by using the coercive power of the state.

In regards to abuse of power, Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU National Office and lead counsel in Mrs. Edmonds' case, said, "The government abused the state secrets privilege to deny Sibel Edmonds her day in court, and to prevent accountability in other cases for illegal spying and rendition. It is high time for Congress to intervene."

Dr. William Weaver, the senior advisor for the National Security Whistleblower's Coalition, who is an expert on the state secrets privilege, agreed with Mrs. Beeson when he said, "In Edmonds' case, tyranny comes in the form of the state secrets privilege, a foolproof mechanism of the federal government to hide executive branch corruption, incompetence, and illegal activity. This is a practice more at home with Czars and nabobs, and should have no place in the United States."

Ostrolenk continued by saying, "This is worse than Watergate in that American lives have been lost and our national security has been compromised. Mrs. Edmonds' case has been vindicated by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General, and several congressional offices. The public has a right to know. The excuse of protecting national security is fallacious. They are protecting their own power and not the American people. Mrs. Edmonds must be heard."

Information in this document should not be taken as an endorsement by any partner organization unless explicitly stated as such.
To arrange an interview with Mr. Ostrolenk, please contact Jesse Benton at 202-246-6363. For more information on The Liberty Coalition, please visit www.libertycoalition.net.

For at least two generations and probably much longer, nobody has been as cynical about the US Army as US Army officers who have had years to see the SNAFUs at first hand. Such have multiplied in recent years, in some cases because of direction from Bush & Rumsfeld (this week's episode in which Bush asks a few billion to train US soldiers in Iraq, rather than train the soldiers before they go to Iraq -- this a prize specimen) but in most other cases, to hear the officers tell it in their own social circles, it's for the old reason: too many officers prepared to toady to their seniors because that's where preferment lies. This ain't limited to the Army, either.

Some prize recent bungles much overlooked:

* The discovery that the junior officer who grossly bungled that disastrous raid in Mogadishu with much unnecessary loss of US lives, reappears in Iraq as a colonel with dubious understanding of the role of military leaders. The commanding general in the Dish on that bad day now goes round saying the disaster was all Bill Clinton's fault.

* The refusal of the US submarine commander who killed several Japanese students by a slovenly, flashy and unnecessary maneuver on the high seas, to testify about the incident until his lawyers had worked out some deal. Totally incompatible with military honor and duty.

* The senior Marine officer who was reported to have cooked the books -- for years -- to persuade the Pentagon the Osprey was a safer aircraft than it really was, thus imperilling the lives of other US service personnel and potentially making money for the company trying to sell the aircraft. This latter, doubtless a coincidence.

* Of the four Rangers who fired on Pete Tillman in Afghanistan, killing him, two claim to be sight-impaired and the third that he fired at Tillman because the other guys were. So goes the fourth Pentagon report on the incident, all three earlier ones now being recognized as, to be polite, unsatisfactory. Is there to be a fifth? The first two said Afghans killed Tillman. No, they didn't.

* The idiots who posted the 800 Military Police Brigade to guard duty at Abu Ghraib. As Gen Taguba reported later, there were three possible ways to teach the brigade how to guard a prison before it left the US, but nobody thought to offer this freely available expertise to the unit. Of course, things went south soon after the unit's arrival in Iraq.

* The fluent Pentagon liars who invented the Jessica Lynch fairy story. She suffered motor vehicle crash injuries and received world-class care from Iraqi civilian hospital immediately thereafter (as US military doctors later testified). She was not tortured; she was not interrogated; she was not raped; she was not rescued after a gunfight by US forces. She did not fire a shot herself.

This last set of lies shows a well-practised hand, and it's employed in the Pentagon. Public lying seems frequent from there.

Funny thing about Defense Department lies: after they're uncovered, nobody seems to be fired or imprisoned. It's to Rumsfeld's shame that he did not detect this structure of lies, and did not ensure that any future lies would not pay off. Evidently, he had other things on his mind -- while relying, doubtless, on the honesty & accuracy of reports his Pentagon assistants were passing up to him.

I know Dick Cheney thinks Rumsfeld was the best-ever defense secretary, but he's also the man in that office who spoke while the American bleeding and dying was going on in Iraq, to point out that he found himself stuck with "the Army you have, not the Army you want". That was December 9, 2004, a new day living in infamy.

Mr. Arkin's comments ignore several important facts -- facts that confirm the opinion trend to accurately hold Rumsfeld accountable for most of the failures in Iraq. Arkin has forgotten several developments from 2002 to 2006:

1. "Not taking charge of post-war planning in the pre-war period." Rumsfeld told subordinates that he didn't want to hear anything about post-war planning, threatening even to fire the next person to bring up the topic.

2. "shortchanging the effort with inadequate resources." This would obviously include the number of troops to be sent. But Chairman of the Jt. Chiefs, Shinseki, testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed -- only to have Wolfowitz immediately insult him by calling the estimate "wildly" inaccurate; and then Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's replacement 18 months before his retirement date, thus "lameducking" him.

And when another administration official estimated the war would cost $200 billion, he was immediately dismissed.

So what makes Mr. Arkin think that anything could have been done to stop Rumsfeld's follies, in light of the consequences to the people who tried?

3. "Not equipping soldiers at the basic and personal level." This is a function of budget -- which Rumsfeld always tried to do "on the cheap."

4. "Not understanding the Iraqi Army." What could the army have done? Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the neocons, were thoroughly wed to their nonsensical commitment to the fraud Chalabi; they would not listen to anything contrary.

Further, I don't recall any prewar discussion by anyone even speculating that the Iraq army would not defend against our invasion. Mr. Arkin is engaging in pure hindsight here.

5. The Army and intelligence operations both tried to inform Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney in May 2003 that an insurgency was developing -- but the troika did not want to hear that information, and disregarded it. It was not until about October that the Administration finally admitted that perhaps there was an insurgency.

So forget trying to let Rumsfeld off the hook even a little bit -- except to the extent you want to add Cheney and Bush.

Next time Mr. Arkin should check his facts.

Lydia, did you even read this post you're commenting on?

Why haven't you resigned?

This is the result of a paid professional army. It is their meal ticket. True some are patriots, but even they will resign with nice pensions and dead beat jobs funneling tax payer money via bloated Pentagon contracts to their buddies rather the refuse to obey illegal orders from the commander in chief as the heroic Lt. Erin Watada did. This is a demoralized and immoral military engaging in an illegal invasion of Iraq under US law and treaty obligations. The military commanders who have reportedly threaten to resign if the neo-con led military orders them to attack Iran are violating their oath to protect the constitution of the USA. If their honor meant anything rather than a fat pay check they would refuse to obey illegal orders. This empire is corrupt and bravo for Mr. Arkin for saying it loud and clear. The US military is responsible for the deaths of nearly a million human beings in Southwest Asia in the so called war on terror. This moniker is a fraud too, the war is to protect and extend the subjagation of mankind for the benefit of a small group of elite predators. The terrorists are either false flag operatives of the Israeli or US or they are insurgents defended the lands of Islam from Israeli and Americans invaders doing the dirty work for Zion. I hope some of the patriots in the military follow Lt. Erin Watada's lead and bring the war criminals into the open where they can be put on trial.

My son has just returned from a second tour in Afghanistan. He entered he Army with a college degree...two years as a school teacher...who decided after 911 that he really wanted to do one thing only...become a member of Special Forces...a Green Beret...he makes very little money...so do not say he is paid a decent wage or that his family is taken care of...it is not true...he has been wounded twice since arriving for Tour 2 in August...He lost his best friend in November when their HumVee hit an ied...and you say he is compensated???? I truly think no one knows what is going on in Afghanistan...it is covert operations and we have never really known...I know my son says there are plenty of bad folks over there and they need to be taken out! Arkin, to say my son and his comrades and their families are taken care of, etc.,... what a joke. Most are living at the poverty level who are in the Army. My son gave up a decent career (school teachers are paid nothing, either) to defend his country after 911. I say he and his comrades are the Volunteers of the Year...they really give their lives everyday for a measly salary and the risk of life and loss to their families. Why don't you go over and do the dirty work yourself before it hits our American soil? I dare you to continue griping about the great benefits soldiers get... and I dare say... there are none.

Lydia
Educator and Mother of an Army Hero
harrisonly@dare.k12.nc.us