Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
  • The Challange of Making Iraq and Afghanistan Battlefields "Green"

    David Botti | Oct 3, 2008 11:37 AM
    As U.S. forces have battled the insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan over the past half-decade, concerns over the wars' environmental impact haven't received as much attention as the strategic and political climates. The has lead to unsafe conditions affecting the health of U.S. troops, Iraqi civilians, and the environment around them. This is according to a new study by the RAND Corporation commissioned by the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) in a effort to identify deficiencies in the Army's handling of its environmental policy, and what effects these have had on the branch's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The report, Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning Through Post-Conflict, states that neglecting environmental considerations can impact not only human and environmental health, but success in counterinsurgency operations, diplomacy, and reconstruction efforts:
    The report concludes that environmental considerations—including clean water, sanitation, hazardous-waste management—can be important for achieving overall U.S. objectives during reconstruction and post-conflict operations, including both short- and long-term stability. If not properly addressed in planning or operations, environmental considerations can increase the costs of an operation and make it more difficult for the Army to sustain the mission. Yet, environmental considerations are not well incorporated into Army planning or operations in any phase of an operation. To address these shortcomings, the Army should take additional steps to ensure that environmental considerations (from strategic to tactical) are appropriately incorporated into planning, operations, training, and research.

    At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 the country had no system of environmental regulation or laws.  Even today walking through some of the poorer neighborhoods of Baghdad, one sees trash strewn thick throughout the dirt streets where the smell at times can become unbearable.  Adding to the country's lack of environmental awareness, the RAND report gave examples of the U.S. military actions which compounded the problem.  The Military Times offered some highlights:

    • A contractor hired by the Defense Department dumped waste oil in a landfill in Iraq and then sold the barrels.

    • U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan buried several drums containing unidentified liquids, which later turned out to be hazardous, posing a risk of soil and groundwater contamination.

    • In Iraq, an airfield sits over an old airfield with leaking fuel tanks. “Major health issues arise whenever it is necessary to dig.”

    • Commanders in Iraq have set up hazardous-waste disposal areas close to camp perimeters, creating a force-protection issue since they were potential targets for hand grenades and IEDs.

    • High-grade diesel fuel was spilled in a lake in Iraq that was used for drinking water at a base. The lake is no longer used as a source of drinking water.

    • U.S. forces in Iraq improperly dumped insecticides, batteries, oil products and other hazardous material. Soldiers joked that fuel spills were “replenishing the oil wells.”

    • Troops in Iraq fell ill after rolling leaking drums of industrial-strength pesticides out of a building.


    The Military Times further reported that according to the U.S. Army Engineer School there is an estimated 11 million pounds of hazardous waste in Iraq.  Lt. Col. Garth Anderson, commander of the 733rd Facility Engineer Detachment, told the paper that environmental problems can adversely affect U.S. soldiers trying to accomplish their tactical missions, but added this is something rarely foremost in their minds:
    “It’s a pretty significant problem,” he said. “I think most soldiers are more concerned about the mission … and may not be as concerned about the environment. But it’s not just [a] … tree-hugger thing.”

    The RAND report offers further examples of the relationship between environment and military missions:
    Force-protection risks can also be increased by environmental issues, as illustrated in a case from Iraq. Because of the hostile environment there, commanders set up their own hazardous-waste accumulation points inside their base camps. These field-expedient satellite accumulation points were located too close to camp perimeters, creating potential targets for hand grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

    Environmental issues can affect the military mission in yet another way. Poor U.S. environmental practices in host nations in the region that support U.S. forces can cause diplomatic problems that affect operations. In OIF, a contractor in a host nation dumped waste anti-freeze from a U.S. base camp and sold the drums. This incident caused a major diplomatic problem that is still being negotiated. Although it has not reached the level where it is affecting operations in this case, host nations have restricted U.S. activities in several non-contingency operations in other parts of the world because of environmental concerns. For example, restrictions were imposed on Army training in Germany, and an Army training range was closed in Okinawa.

    Finally, military operations can be affected by the ability of the logistical systems to support them. If base camps and military equipment have large requirements for resources, the logistics system must supply them for military operations to continue. By taking steps such as developing local water sources and reusing engine oil to reduce logistical needs, the Army can reduce the logistical burdens of an operation, either by providing more logistics capacity for warfighting or by reducing the size of the logistical tail needed for an operation.


    Among the report's recommendations for military leaders are to cultivate an "environmental ethic" throughout the Army; to better incorporate environmental considerations into strategic planning; and to train soldiers about environmental issues that could arise in the field before they deploy.

    More
  • 9/11 Marks Deadliest Year for U.S. in Afghanistan

    David Botti | Sep 11, 2008 12:39 PM
    It used to be that the term "forgotten" was often applied to the war in Afghanistan, at least in comparison to the stream of news coming out of Iraq during the past few years. Now, as Iraq quiets, troop shifts to Afghanistan are planned for the near future, and the media once again devotes more column inches to that conflict, word comes of a new milestone: 2008 is the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

    The Associated Press reports that two U.S. soldiers were killed today, the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, bringing 2008's death toll to 113, passing the 111 U.S. soldiers killed there last year.  At the same time, 33,000 U.S. troops are currently operating in Afghanistan; the most since 2001.  As the two latest U.S. deaths are still recent, there are few details available:
    The NATO-led force said one soldier was killed when insurgents attacked a compound. The separate U.S.-led coalition said a second service member died in combat. No other details were released, but a Western military official told The Associated Press that both troops were American.

    Yesterday the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, told congress that NATO forces are running out of time in Afghanistan and attention needs to be given to Pakistan's tribal areas along with the border. His testimony came as U.S. forces are openly conducting cross-border raids into Pakistan, which is drawing condemnation from that country's government.  From the LA Times:
    Mullen said the new strategy for Afghanistan must focus on more than just increasing troop strength. He noted that existing provincial reconstruction teams did not have enough agricultural, educational and judicial experts. The U.S. must focus on boosting foreign investment and improving governance in Afghanistan, he said.

    "We can't kill our way to victory," Mullen said.

    Mullen said he was not convinced the U.S. and its allies were winning in Afghanistan but said he believed victory was possible.

    There's been scant coverage of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, but still there is some quality work out there.  The UK Guardian has this interactive piece following U.S. and British soldiers in various regions of the country.  The paper also has a striking series of videos riding along with a U.S. Army Medevac helicopter crew.  There was also this frightening and candid New York Times Magazine piece following a unit of soldiers operating in the volatile Korengal Valley.

    More
  • Advertisement
  • More Debate Over New GI Bill

    David Botti | May 15, 2008 11:45 AM
    Discussion over proposed GI Bill overhauls is front and center on the House floor as lawmakers debate an add-on to President Bush's request for more war funding.  The goal of the add-on is to update the WWII-era GI Bill which allows veterans to receive money for attending college.  Under the current proposal, Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be allowed to attend any four-year public university after having served at least three years in the active-duty military.  To pay for this, the plan calls for a surtax on people making over $500,000, or couples with a combined income of $1 million.  The Associated Press has reactions from both sides of the debate:

    "We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

    The White House weighed in with an official veto promise Thursday that also attacked the Democratic plan for increasing taxes.

    "The president has been clear that tax increases are unacceptable," the White House statement said.


    The overall war spending bill proposal calls for $163 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the GI Bill add-on expects to raise $54 billion over the next 10 years through the surtax.  The bill would also allow veterans 15 years to use the benefits, whereas currently the limit is 10 years.

    In the Senate Wednesday, Sen. McCain's proposal for a GI Bill overhaul lost in a 55-42 vote to a counter proposal by Sen. Jim Webb.  MSNBC summarized the differences between the two:

    In the simplest terms, the Webb bill would effectively pay for tuition and housing at a four-year public college for those serving at least three years of active duty. The McCain measure isn't as generous, as it increases existing education benefits by $400 a month for the same time served: from $1,100 to $1,500.

    After the vote, McCain had this reaction [via ABC News]:

    “My job is to get people to stay in the military, not only to join, but to stay as well,” McCain said, although he added that he will be sitting down with Webb to try to work out a compromise. He wants to make sure to include a component of his bill which is not in Webb bill that would allow for transferability of benefits to family members.

    Talk of McCain's proposal also entered the presidential campaigns when Barack Obama criticized his potential opponent's unwillingness to expand more veterans benefits.  McCain's camp countered by saying it was absurd for Obama to criticize McCain's commitment to veterans.  In Obama's words [via USA Today]:

    I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

    Also in military benefits news, the House Armed Services Committee approved next year's defense spending bill which includes a 3.9 percent pay raise for members of the military.

    More
  • Pat Tillman's Legacy Four Years On

    David Botti | May 9, 2008 01:58 PM
    Though he was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, Pat Tillman's death is still a subject of controversy and tremendous reflection. Tillman, you will recall, was the NFL player turned Army Ranger who was originally said to have died under enemy fire (he was awarded the Silver Star), but later reports found he was killed by friendly fire.

    Now his mother, Mary, has published a book in which she charges that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew about the cover-up over the details of her son's death.  As she writes [via MSNBC]:

    “... I believe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew Pat was killed by fratricide and permitted the cover-up.  It is not believable that a man known for his propensity to micromanage would not want to know what happened to his most high-profile soldier. I informed the committee that Pat received a personal letter from Rumsfeld shortly after he and his brother enlisted, commending him for his commitment to serve. Pat was obviously in Rumsfeld's consciousness."

    During a recent 60 Minutes interview, Katie Couric questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren over the alterations of eyewitness accounts of Tillman's death used for his Silver Star citation.  She asked if he knew who manipulated the statements, and he replied:

    "Well, that's one of the questions that we will never completely answer.  But it certainly is one of the areas that that raises questions. There are so many mistakes. So many things that happened. If you add them all together, it certainly calls into question the credibility of those who handled this. And raises the kind of questions that Ms. Tillman raises. I don't blame her for that. And I don't expect her ever to believe us. But there was no effort to deceive. There were mistakes and grievous errors by the legions. And as a result, we fell short of our duty to her as a mother of one of our heroes."

    Over at the IAVA blog, Perry Jefferies takes issue with Sec. Geren's uncertainty, saying that the process for awarding medals should clearly indicate who writes a citation:

    Only a certain amount of people handle the citation for the Silver Star, one of our highest military awards. Each commander signs a block on the document and there is a document called a transmittal letter that accompanies it from office to office. Only organizational will prevents the Army from prosecuting the criminal that a) faked an official document and b) tried to leave a lower grade enlisted Soldier to take the blame.

    If indeed the medal was awarded under dishonest conditions, should it still stand?  A letter to the Arizona Republic newspaper took this stance:

    The awarding of the decoration was illegal, as the incident obviously didn't represent "gallantry in action against an armed enemy," as required by the Army's own regulations.  This award does a disservice to all of our veterans who have legitimately earned this august award. The Tillman family should return the award to the Army, which should then rescind the award as unjustified and issued illegally.

    Another reader then responded:
    Yes, it may be true that this star represents "gallantry in action against an armed enemy." What could be more gallant than a young man giving up not only his career but his life?  Pat Tillman gave up his life to serve in an illegal war that has ruined our economy with the billions of dollars being wasted but, more important, the loss of the respect of the rest of the world.

    In the New York Times' look at Mary Tillman's new book, there's an interesting historical note of other athletes who've been killed in action.

    Eddie Grant, the Giants’ third baseman, died in France in 1918. Christy Mathewson, the great Giants pitcher, had his life shortened from a mustard-gas accident in training near the end of World War I. And Nile Kinnick, the star running back from Iowa, died in a training flight in 1943. But Pat Tillman’s death was different because of the way he was used, posthumously, blatantly.

    You can read a Newsweek Q&A with Mary Tillman here.

    More
  • Still Wondering: Is Afghanistan Forgotten?

    David Botti | Apr 30, 2008 10:28 AM
    Is it possible that, when all is said and done, the war in Afghanistan will become a "forgotten war"?  An article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer on U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan got me thinking about where that war will end up in the history books--and I couldn't help but think of the Korean War. My knowledge of that war comes primarily from my father, an Air Force veteran who served during the conflict. Ever since I could remember, whenever he talks about Korea he prefaces the conversation lamenting the fact the Korean War receives much less attention than WWII or Vietnam. Korea shows that even a modern war can fade from collective memory.

    It's clear that Iraq overshadows Afghanistan in the public consciousness, but it seems as though over the past few years the term "overshadows" has become somewhat of an understatement.  Here's the situation over there as told by the Inquirer:

    The U.S. military death toll will soon reach 500 in Afghanistan, where the war has received less media attention than the conflict in Iraq despite an increasingly violent insurgency, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and a growing commitment of troops...

    ...By the Pentagon's latest count, the armed forces have suffered 489 deaths so far. And still troops arrive: The number in Afghanistan exceeds 34,000, with 7,500 additional men and women requested.

    The U.S. troops are part of a 40-nation force expanded from 40,000 in fall 2006 to nearly 70,000 today. Last year was the deadliest since 2001, according to the United Nations, which reported 8,000 fatalities, including 1,500 civilians.


    As far back as 2004, Time Magazine published a cover story whose online component was titled: "Remember Afghanistan?" And then there was this New York Times 2005 editorial titled: "Afghanistan's Forgotten War." Now, in 2008, we're still wondering if Afghanistan is forgotten. But, why? Is it simply because of less media coverage? Is it because of Iraq? Is it because people don't care, don't understand, or don't have enough energy to follow two U.S. wars at the same time?

    Whatever the reason, the violence still continues. Yesterday came word that U.S. Marines recently deployed to Afghanistan, launched a major operation attacking a Taliban-held town in the violent Helmand region.  According to the Associated Press, this was the furthest south U.S. forces had operated in years:

    The goal is to stretch NATO's presence into an area where illegal opium poppy fields are plentiful and the Taliban is strong. British troops man a small base on Garmser's northern edge but insurgents rule the countryside south of the outpost all the way to the Pakistan border.

    Also yesterday, Canada's Globe and Mail Newspaper published an opinion piece by Brigadier General Dennis Tabbernor, deputy commanding general, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan.  The paper posed the question: "Is Afghanistan Worth It?," and he answered in part:
    More
  • Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

    David Botti | Apr 29, 2008 10:41 AM
    More than half a century after the GI Bill was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this statement on his Website:

    The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11, 2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.

    In a profile of numerous veterans struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the current GI Bill stands now.  The problem is that these benefits can no longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier generations of veterans.

    Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

    About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

    An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.


    Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.
    More
  • Airline Goes Bankrupt, Homecomings Delayed

    David Botti | Apr 25, 2008 03:03 PM
    The Air Force Times reported today that the bankruptcy of a civilian airline under contract to provide flights for the military is delaying homecoming for some troops. ATA shut down the day after filing for bankruptcy on April 2--the airline's second bankruptcy in nearly three years. An army spokesman told the AF Times that troops could expect delays of two to six days for the next several weeks.

    ATA was part of the FedEx Teaming Arrangement, a group of airlines contracted by the military to transport troops and their families overseas. The Indianapolis Star reported on the circumstances of the local air carrier's demise:
    Hampered by unprofitable routes, ATA lost $75 million last year and was in talks with five potential suitors when FedEx, with apparently little explanation, decided to cut off the Indianapolis carrier's only money maker: military charters...Its roots were passenger charters that led the carrier, earlier known as American Trans Air, to branch out into troop charters. ATA operates a $340 million-a-year airborne bus line ferrying troops and their families to and from places where the U.S. military stations troops worldwide.

    Back on the home front, military families awaiting the return of their stranded loved ones are speaking out.  The Hartford Courant has the story of one father who reached out to his old college roommate, Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein, for help:
    More
  • Veterans Suing the VA, Senators Call for Resignation

    David Botti | Apr 23, 2008 09:57 AM
    A trial in U.S. District Court is now underway as a group of veterans challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs over the lack of care afforded to returning troops. The case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, is said by the plaintiffs' attorney to be the first of its kind.  Yesterday a suicide expert testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that veterans are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population. The American Lawyer has a good summary of what the case is all about:
    The suit claims that many disabled combat veterans are in dire need of counseling and other services they are not currently receiving from the U.S. government. Erspamer [the plaintiff's counsel] estimates that 120 veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan commit suicide each week. The veterans' groups are not seeking monetary damages but want reform of a health care system in which they allege a huge backlog of cases prevents veterans from receiving timely care.

    The San Francisco Chronicle outlined what suicide expert Ronald Maris sees as a complete lack of readiness within the VA to deal with the great number of veterans suicides:

    A majority of the VA's counselors, doctors, social workers and psychologists "don't have the tools and the information that they need to intervene effectively with suicidal vets," said Maris, a former president of the American Association of Suicidology who has been a consultant to the Army on suicide prevention.

    He was particularly critical of the VA's top health care administrator, William Feeley, who said in a pretrial deposition April 9 that the agency has no systematic national plan for suicide prevention. Feeley also said he was unaware of any methods of tracking veterans at risk of suicide and that suicide rates "are not a metric we are measuring."


    The impact of the trial is being felt in Washington, D.C. where two U.S. senators are now calling for the resignation of the VA's chief mental health official, Dr. Ira Katz.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is citing evidence learned in the trial showing that the VA withheld information on the rising number of veterans suicides.  As her statement reads:
    More
  • 19 Percent of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets Suffer from Depression

    David Botti | Apr 17, 2008 01:22 PM
    A new comprehensive report by the RAND Corporation has concluded that 300,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from depression or PTSD--and only about half have sought out treatment, according to the Associated Press. The report surveyed 1,965 vets in what the AP calls the first large scale private study of its kind. The numbers show that 18.5 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan vets suffer from these these symptoms. According to RAND, possible solutions to temper these problems may be available:

    Among our recommendations is that effective treatments documented in the scientific literature — evidence-based care — are available for PTSD and major depression. Delivery of such care to all veterans with PTSD or major depression would pay for itself within two years, or even save money, by improving productivity and reducing medical and mortality costs. Such care may also be a cost-effective way to retain a ready and healthy military force for the future. However, to ensure that this care is delivered requires system-level changes across the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. health care system.


    The AP offered up more conclusions drawn from the study, including why vets are not seeking care:
    They gave various reasons for not getting help, including that they worried about the side effects of medication; believe family and friends could help them with the problem, or that they feared seeking care might damage their careers.

    The report also noted who is most susceptible to depression and PTSD, although, in the end, it is a vet's exposure to combat trauma that is the greatest predictor:
    Rates of PTSD and major depression were highest among Army soldiers and Marines, and among service members who were no longer on active duty (people in the reserves and those who had been discharged or retired from the military). Women, Hispanics and enlisted personnel all were more likely to report symptoms of PTSD and major depressions.

    Last November the Pentagon opened the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury in an effort to bring together education, treatment, and research.  From the Department of Defense:

    The center also will set standards and assess, survey and validate DoD programs, and decide, in part, how resources are directed... Center officials are reviewing hundreds of research project proposals that hope to claim a piece of the $300 million set aside by Congress last year for brain injury research. The office also will work with the military services to see which of the many programs funded with another $600 million from Congress are working and how to direct those funds to programs most beneficial to servicemembers and families.


    More
  • New Looks at Military Blogging

    David Botti | Apr 9, 2008 10:09 AM
    Since the start of the Iraq war, the importance and viability of military blogs has stirred up tremendous debate.  There have been issues of military censorship, journalistic viability, and ethical dilemmas.  Recently, talk of where (and how) military blogs fit into the war's narrative has seemed to intensify to some degree.  Here's a look at what's happening:

    The Columbia Journalism Review published a lengthy article in its last issue profiling Bill Roggio, a U.S.-based military blogger who's set up his own media operation aimed at reporting on terrorism and "small wars" beyond what the mainstream media can do.  Before the piece gets to Roggio, the intro takes a look at the gap military blogs aim to fill:
    When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, among the seven-hundred-odd journalists who embedded with combat units were few who were familiar with the military in any intimate way. To many critics, especially those with military experience, this revealed itself in the press’s coverage of the war, which they felt often missed the mark when it came to explaining the hows and the whys of the fight, as well as the mundane realities of military life and culture.

    Army veteran Roggio first started blogging about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to put the events in perspective for his family.  But, as CJR notes, a transformation took place that's changed the way Roggio operates—and underscores the significance these blogs can have:
    It was during the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004, however, that he began to focus his effort. He had been posting detailed battle maps of Iraq’s Anbar province on his site, showing where Marine and Army units were meeting the stiffest resistance from insurgent groups who harassed them with roadside bombs and the occasional ambush. In the spring of 2005, a new group of readers began logging on to Roggio’s site. The Marines in Anbar province were embroiled in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse, and looking for any tactical advantage they could find. Officers with the Regimental Combat Team 2 discovered Roggio’s site and began using it as an information source, calling his site the “Command Chronology of Western Iraq.”
    More
  • An Exhausted Military

    David Botti | Apr 2, 2008 11:10 AM
    The Washington Post reports today on the decrease in readiness among U.S. ground combat forces. Not only are the soldiers and Marines worn down by continuous deployments, but tactically there are few available forces to respond other potential conflicts throughout the world. According to the Post, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the Senate Armed Services Committee:
    "When the five-brigade surge went in...that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army."

    Currently, Army soldiers serve 15-month overseas deployments with 12 months at home in between.  Marines serve seven-month deployments separated by another seven months.  For the Marine Corps (a much smaller branch of service than the Army) the fact that 3,200 Marines are now being sent to Afghanistan is considered by some to be severely degrading Marine assets.

    "There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our forces," [said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps], calling the current pace of operations "unsustainable."

    Magnus suggested that if more Marines are freed from Iraq they could also go to Afghanistan. Marines "will move to the sound of the guns in Afghanistan," he said. But he said it would be difficult to keep the force split between the two countries because the Marine Corps has limited resources to command a divided force and supply it logistically.

    The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said.

    The Post further reported that efforts to increase the number of soldiers and Marines will not translate into units able to provide operational relief until 2011.

    More
  • Interactive Map Showing Hometowns of Casualties

    David Botti | Apr 2, 2008 10:36 AM
    A reader recently pointed me to an  incredibly detailed interactive map indicating the hometowns of U.S. military casualties from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Based on information available from the Department of Defense, the map's creator has allowed viewers to filter the map by branch of service, military operation, sex, and age. Check it out here.  It first appears zoomed in on the New York City area, but one can view anywhere in the country.

    From the Website's mission statement:
    In mid 2007 oobgolf.com launched an advanced golf course finder for our users. We recently made the decision to use that same technology and development resources to map the hometowns of soldiers who have died in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was not done as a political statement. We simply felt that this tool provided a unique way for Americans to connect to these fallen soldiers in a new more personal way.


    More
  • Veteran Vs. Veteran: A Visit to Washington

    David Botti | Mar 11, 2008 01:03 PM
    Thirty-seven years after John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) descended upon Washington, D.C. to protest against U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, a new generation of veterans will do the same later this week.  The group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is heading to the Capital as part of an event called Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan, named after the similar VVAW event four decades ago.  As IVAW puts it:

    The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

    There hasn't been much U.S. press coverage on the event, but the UK's Sunday Times, using the headline of "Patriot Missiles," had a lengthy magazine story on the subject:

    The veterans are not against the military and seek not to indict it – instead they seek to shine a light on the bigger picture: that the Abu Ghraib prison regime and the Haditha massacre of innocent Iraqis are not isolated incidents perpetrated by “bad seeds” as the military suggests, but evidence of an endemic problem. They will say they were tasked to do terrible things and point the finger up the chain of command, which ignores, diminishes or covers up routine abuse and atrocities.


    Other veterans, and vet bloggers, aren't thrilled with this event. A group called "Stop the Slander," described as a "coalition of concerned veterans, family members, and friends," has even published a guide for reporter's covering IVAW.  The guide warns journalists that claims made by IVAW may be untrue.  The guide even provides an acronym to follow of questions to ask:

    D
    : Date(s) – When did the incident occur?
    U: Unit(s) – What military units were involved?
    P: Personnel – What are the names of the participants and witnesses?
    E: Event(s) – What exactly happened exactly where?
    S: Signature(s) – Was this reported at the time or later and were reports, affidavits or depositions signed, or will they now be signed?


    Veterans For Freedom blogger, Mark Seavey, took his own critical look at the IVAW's preparations for the Winter Soldier event, but in the end wrote that both sides of the debate should be heard -- without unnecessary contest or debate:

    I think it speaks well of IVAW that they expect all testimony to be true and verifiable.  And there will plenty of eyes there to ensure that.  Hopefully we can all say our piece, discuss our views and then go home with no violence on anyone’s part.

     

    The term "Winter Soldier" is derived from Thomas Paine's passage intended to motivate George Washington's troops suffering at Valley Forge:

    “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

    This is generating a huge amount of debate within the vocal veterans community.  What's interesting to note is that perhaps the only demographic who can debate IVAW, without being called-out on their lack of service, is other veterans.  The issues goes above someone's service record, and shows how the fabled, and perhaps cliched, military bond can only go so far in such times of controversy.  Or, is it still there, above all the ruckus?  We'll soon find out.
    More
  • 19-Year-Old Woman Earns Silver Star

    David Botti | Mar 10, 2008 12:17 PM
    In the realm of military awards, history was recently made when the military announced a 19-year-old soldier would become only the second woman since WWII to receive the Silver Star . Monica Lin Brown , an Army medic who served in Afghanistan, will be... More
  • Obama's Comment On Taliban Weapons

    David Botti | Feb 26, 2008 11:25 AM
    Over at the IntelDump last Friday, Phil Carter was urged by his readers to examine an anecdote Barack Obama gave in the Democratic presidential debate the day before. In the military community Obama's recollection of his conversation with an Army captain about the use of captured weapons prompted curiosity, skepticism, and disbelief.  As Obama said:
    I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

    They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead.


    What's got everyone talking is the idea that U.S. troops are so ill-equipped that they are actually using the enemy's weapons to turn around and fight the same enemy. My rifle company landed in Iraq in 2003 with hardly any M240G machine gun ammo. The rumor was additional ammo was graciously provided to the machine gunners by some Navy SEAL's. But that was when the war first started. How about now?

    Carter provided a few follow-ups which sought to fact-check Obama's comments.  Here's what he found out through a friend:
    I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition requisition.

    Then there was ABC News National Correspondent Jake Tapper who went straight to the Obama campaign staff seeking an interview with the Army soldier Obama referenced. The story checks out; but Tapper saw fit to elaborate:

    They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

    "We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."

    So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.


    Carter also pointed out this post on the National Review Online which took issue with the idea that captains were commanding rifle platoons; a job normally reserved for lieutenants. At one point I had a captain commanding my rifle platoon; so, that takes care of that, fact-check. Particularly in the Marine Corps Reserves, where officers must complete a period of active duty service before switching to reserve duty, you find hardly any Lieutenants. The result is that higher ranks are sometimes taking up lower billeted job positions.

    Finally, over the weekend, the Associated Press fact-checked Obama's story. The article also mentioned that Sen. John Warner, ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is seeking information about the anonymous captain and his platoon. Warner is looking to speak about the situation at the next committee meeting.


    More
The Peek
 
 
PROJECT GREEN

A startup is betting free coffees and groceries will encourage reluctant recyclers.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by