-
David Botti
|
May 13, 2008 12:53 PM
News roundup:
*Bill Ardolino of The Long War Journal takes his readers along on a night patrol with U.S. soldiers and members of a Baghdad neighborhood watch called Sons of Iraq:
Co-founded seven months ago by local leaders and members of the 82nd
Airborne, the Al Sadria branch of the neighborhood watch is composed of
about 250 members who are paid by and coordinate with American units.
The branch is responsible for a series of predominantly Shia
neighborhoods in central Baghdad that include part of the Shorja
Market. Though leader Faris Abdul-Hassan refers to his group as “the
first Shia Awakening” against criminals and terrorists, he refuses to
hire anyone with sectarian allegiances.
According to Ardolino, with a decrease in the
number of U.S. troops, the Sons of Iraq have been successful in
shouldering the burden of peacekeeping in their own section of
Baghdad. While the final goal is integration with the Iraqi police,
many in the Sons of Iraq are weary of high infiltration rates within
the police by members of the Mahdi Army. See a photo slideshow of the patrol here.
*The Marine Corps Times reports
that the Navy plans to expand the number of mobile psychiatric teams
embedded within Marine units. A bit of context: the Marine Corps
doesn't have its own medical services, but rather relies on the Navy to
provide personnel (the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the
Navy). The units, known as Navy Operational Stress Control and
Readiness (or OSCAR), should number at 23 within two years. The
purpose is to provide initial psychiatric counseling to Marines while
they are still serving out in the field:
“We want to put mental health professionals with our small-unit
leaders,” Navy Surgeon General Vice Adm. Adam Robinson said. “We think
if we can train them there. Tere’s a real synergy that can come. We can
be there to help with treatment, training and surveillance.”
*One doesn't see much reporting out of Basra these days, but the New York Times Baghdad Bureau blog has an interesting piece today.
An Iraqi member of the Times staff took a four-day reporting trip to
Basra to see just what the situation is there. Some selections:
I stopped for a while and I saw many Iraqi Army cars riddled with
bullets. I saw troops deployed everywhere I looked: on the roof of
every high building, every road intersection, occupying government
offices that before were occupied by political factions.
I was shocked when I saw traces of the fight, which was clear on the buildings close to the main streets.
As an Iraqi from the south who knows exactly what was going on, with
the militias controlling everything in particular cities or ports, I
did not expect that the Iraqi forces – which are majority Shia - would
be able to confront the militia influence.
There was a new feeling. I had never seen before the Iraq Army,
without hesitation, accusing the Mahdi Army of being involved in all
the disorder there.
One of the soldiers told me: “The Mahdi Army are a group of criminals, they will destroy everything if we don’t stop them.”
In the past, I have never seen soldiers dare to say anything about
them. I felt the reign of fear is broken, and that is it. Exactly the
same feeling as when the Baathist regime fell.
*Military.com recently posted an article taking a look at the rise in per capita income within military communities:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be behind the jumps in income,
according to experts. Combat pay and re-enlistment bonuses for
professional soldiers, combined with the activation of National Guard
and Reserve units, put more money in the bank accounts of personnel
shipping out of Fort Bragg, said David G. Lenze of the U.S. Commerce
Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which issued the income data.
According
to the piece, in North Carolina two major military communities ranked
first and second in areas of the state with the highest per capita
growth. The first of these, the Fort Bragg area, saw personal income
rise more than $8,900 over five years. Military towns in Georgia and
Tennessee saw these numbers rise by between 35 and 37 percent.
More
-
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
-
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
-
David Botti
|
Apr 22, 2008 11:25 AM
The army announced yesterday that the practice of "stop-loss," where a
solider is held past his/her enlistment contract, should continue for
at least another year. While military leaders are making efforts to
reduce combat tour lengths, and increase the size of the army, the Associated Press reports
there are roughly 12,000 soldiers serving under the stop-loss. The
numbers break down to: "6,800 active-duty Army, about 3,800 in the Army
National Guard and close to 1,500 in the Reserves."
USA Today breaks down the numbers even further, putting the latest stop-loss news into a wider historical context:
-In May 2007 the practice of stop-loss reached a three-year low of 8,540.
-"Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March."
-"Soldiers affected by stop loss now serve, on average, an extra 6.6
months...Key leaders at the
small-unit level — sergeants through sergeants first class — make up
45% of those soldiers. Soldiers typically enlist for four-year stints."
-58,300 soldiers have been affected by the stop-loss since 2002.
People have often asked me what exactly a stop-loss is --
especially after they hear it referred to as the "back door draft."
First, USA Today offers this concise summary of how the army views the
policy: "Stop loss can keep a soldier in the service if his or her unit
deploys
within 90 days of the end of the soldier's commitment. It is necessary,
the Army says, to maintain the integrity of units headed to war."
Second,
I sometimes use the example of my own unit on the eve of the invasion
into Iraq back in 2003. Most of us in my reserve unit enlisted under a
six-year contract. That meant that for six years were would actively
train with our home unit, and be subject to mobilizations if ordered by
the president. Afterwards, we would spend two years in the Inactive
Ready Reserve (IRR) during which time we would not train, but would
still "be on the books," in case the military needed more troops.
In
March 2003, when my unit got word it was heading to Iraq, a number of
marines were reaching the end of their six-year contract. Depending on
how long we stayed in Iraq, their contract might end while they were
over there. It was these marines who were subject to stop-loss. They
were senior members of the unit whose experience would be invaluable
during the deployment, and our company would be hurt if our numbers
decreased. So, they stayed and deployed with us; then left the
military after returning home.
Most did not complain about
serving past their enlistment contract. Their buddies were going to
war, and the stop-loss marines wanted to go with them -- and, at that
point, the war was still new. Many felt they'd miss out on a major
historical event that would go down in the history books. But, times
have changed, and the war is more than five years old. As James
Martin, a social work professor at Bryn Mawr College and retired Army
colonel, told USA Today: "These are the guys who bear the brunt of it.
They just get put back into the grinder continually."
More
-
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
-
David Botti
|
Apr 16, 2008 01:49 PM
A selection of military news stories over the recent days:
The Associated Press reports
on troubles with training the Iraqi Navy and Marine Corps, and cites
recent issues with Iraqi Army troops fighting in Basra as indicative of
the overall training situation. As the rebuilt Iraqi navy is tasked
with defending the country's two vital oil platforms, the AP tells of a
disconnect between the reality of the situation and how it is perceived
by the navy recruits:
The day when Iraq alone can defend its shores — and protect its critical offshore oil installations — seems remote.
Iraq’s
navy now has five Chinese-made patrol boats and 26 fast-attack aluminum
vessels — fewer than half of which are operational. Its personnel
number about 1,350, including 350 Marines.
“They think they are
an elite unit, but they are not,” said Capt. Jock Alexander of the
British Royal Marines, who is in charge of training Iraqi Marines to
guard the 1.8-mile exclusion zone around each of the country’s two oil
platforms.
The struggle to build a credible Iraqi navy is
mirrored — on larger scales — by the mounting delays and costs to form
a new Iraqi army and air force after Washington disbanded Saddam
Hussein’s military.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports
on a series of grass-roots efforts aimed at joining Iraq veterans in
need with U.S. citizens ready to help. Among the programs are an
upcoming online forum of therapists around the country who've offered
their services to treating Iraq veterans. Many of these therapists
have committed one hour of free counseling to Iraq vets per week, for
as long as they wish. Then there's a series of Websites dedicated to
linking vets with people willing to donate money for basic
necessities. Still, the VA is hesitant to get on board with these
groups:
While Veterans Affairs
officials appreciate the support of community groups like Bobrow's,
they're careful about embracing them. Because of privacy regulations,
the VA can't disclose who has used their services. Often, VA employees
are reluctant to even hand out flyers from fledgling groups until
thoroughly checking them out.
"The veterans and their families have suffered enough. So when they
put up a public profile or say they need help, we want to make sure
they don't get injured again," said Patricia Matthews, a spokeswoman
for the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Center.
In a profile of Elise Forbes Tripp,
author of "Surviving Iraq: Soldiers' Stories," the Portsmouth Herald
News details some of her most interesting findings through interviews
with Iraq vets, including this one:
She was surprised at the men being upset at
having women in their units. "I would get long responses about how
useless women are in war ...; not sexist but how they don't belong
there."
Men said they created sexual tension
and diverted attention. They require involvement from male colleagues
for their safety, for example, having to guard their showers or to calm
them during a difficult time. "And I think they felt it was unfair that
woman could get pregnant and go home," she says. "I was just listening,
thinking this is amazing."
The New York Times reports that Donald Rumsfeld is set to pen his own memoir:
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
who resigned as secretary of defense in late 2006, will write his
memoirs for the Sentinel imprint of Penguin Group USA. Mr. Rumsfeld,
75, will cover not only his years in the Bush administration but also
his experiences with Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Ronald Reagan;
his work in the private sector; and his early life. In contrast to
other recent political figures who have produced memoirs, Mr. Rumsfeld
is forgoing an advance and will donate profits to a nonprofit
foundation he recently established to make educational grants to young
people interested in public service and establishing links between the
United States and Central Asia.
The Marine Corps Times reports
that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is proposing new measures that
would provide homes for severely injured veterans on VA property. The
proposal came during a Senate defense appropriations subcommittee
hearing where issues of long-term veterans care were raised. Sen.
Feinstein cited VA property in West Los Angeles that includes 300 acres
of undeveloped land:
Feinstein said she offered VA’s West LA campus as an example because
she often visits the site, but she believes such housing also could be
built at other VA facilities around the country.
Feinstein and
other California lawmakers have been trying to block VA from leasing
out the unused land for commercial purposes, but they have not agreed
on what to do with the property. Some want the land to be public park
land, some have proposed building housing for homeless veterans and
others have talked about leaving it completely undeveloped so it can be
used by future generations.
More
-
David Botti
|
Apr 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Today we're taking at look at a New York Times article written by C.J. Chivers
around the time Donald Rumsfeld resigned from office. Chivers, a
former marine, is able to capture the mood and dialog of a Marine
infantry squad in a simple and straight forward manner. He let's the
marines do the talking, and in doing so offers an ironic depiction of
how some grunts relate to their leaders.
The November 2006 piece
occurs as Chivers is embedded with the squad in Zagarit, Iraq. They
have been sleeping in the house of a local Iraqi man, Hashim al-Menti,
who sees on the television that Rumsfeld has resigned from his position
as Secretary of Defense. He informs the squads sergeant:
More
-
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
-
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
-
David Botti
|
Mar 21, 2008 12:38 PM
Earlier this week I posted excerpts from I journal
I kept while serving in Iraq. During this fifth anniversary week of the
war, I wanted to give readers a sense of what it was like preparing to
deploy. Today I'm posting a few more entries from the journal. They all
take place while I was at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, waiting to see
if/when we'd get the call to deploy.
March 23, 2003
A
Sunday afternoon on the barracks' catwalk. Day four of the war. Nothing
much else to do but bullsh*t and watch TV. There are an estimated 50
Marine casualties at this point. Mom said she watched a firefight on TV
this morning. Some U.S. forces are less than 100 miles from Baghdad.
Other than that don't know what else to say...just waiting. A lot of us
think that we'll end up going no where, just end up staying stateside.
I don't believe that, I just hope we don't go somewhere for some bull*t
mission. If we do something good I know I'll feel as though I've
accomplished something worthwhile in my 23 years.
Things just
get more surreal by the hour. First, we watched more footage of the
front lines where Marines were fighting. These guys are just like us,
it's so obvious but I just can't get my head around it. At one point
the reporter mentioned he was with the 2nd Battalion 8th Marines--and
we're staying in their barracks right now. It's getting more
frustrating to see Marines dying and not being able to help them. Sgt.
D- speculates that our leave date for Iraq might come sooner. He also
says when we get there we'll probably wish for these long nights back
in the U.S. Funny, because he's never talked like that before.
March 24, 2003
Not
much to say except that today I realized I could actually die. I mean I
see vivid pictures of such things, and I see how easily this can happen
in war. It may seem like an obvious statement. I thought about these
kinds of things the moment I enlisted. But never in those early,
innocent, "good ol' days" when I rushed through weekend training to get
back to school and finish my homework, did I ever think I'd be in a
war. Then, once this became apparent, it has taken until now to really
understand what war actually means...I mean, really means. It doesn't
seem like me, David Botti, could be shot to death on a road in
Iraq...but, it can so easily happen. So easy to become a name on the
wall, and a cross in Arlington Nation Cemetery where thousands like me
may have thought the same things. But I shouldn't think about such
morbid things. The war is getting bloodier...especially for the
Marines. Today I saw an Army convoy come under attack on TV.
March 25, 2003
Things
have changed infinitely in a matter of a few hours. We learned today
that we would be leaving for Kuwait by the weekend. Things kicked into
high gear. The mood seems somber, uncertain, worried. Things are so
real and so clear that it seems everyday the fog lifts revealing how
things will really be. I could see it in the major's face as he told us
we were going. Here are people's thoughts: H- is having trouble
sleeping; B- is worried that he'll kill someone and go to hell; S-
wishes he picked up a slutty girl last weekend; A- doesn't feel like
talking to his parents (he also thinks he only has a 20 percent chance
of coming home not wounded or dead); C- wants to go but is scared at
the same time; N- is nervous. All I can really do is concentrate on the
future, and put all this into perspective when I come back home.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 19, 2008 09:13 AM
Along with the Iraq war starting five years ago this week, this
period was also the first time I began writing in the journal I kept
while deployed. I'm posting excerpts today and tomorrow, so you can
get a sense of what was going through the mind of a lowly lance
corporal on his way to Iraq. The entries are not particularly
eloquent, but they're real and I hope they just show what the calm was
like before the storm. I've omitted the names of my fellow Marines for
their privacy.
March 10, 2003
Our platoon commander has been
having meetings with all the squad leaders (planning and training
stuff), and it sounds like we're going balls to the wall. He says if
we're going to the front we're dropping everything, and taking only
food and ammo. Morale seems relatively high -- probably from the
adventure factor. Sounds like we may be in Kuwait within 10 days if
the training schedule at Camp Lejeune doesn't get lengthened.
We
got a slightly propaganda-ish Iraq country briefing, and one on desert
survival. In terms of politics in the world I'm loosing track of all
those resolutions, votes, "phone calls," etc. I just want to get over
there. I've also realized I haven't thought about the future much.
Hopefully, I'll be too busy to think about it. I wonder what they're
doing back home right now. Is it wrong of me to think that I feel
almost lucky to be in this position, to see some facet of the world
which is rare -- and then have the ability to come home and bring those
experiences with me? Well -- we'll see what kinds of experiences I
actually take home...if I want them with me. A- isn't sure if he wants
to go back to school after our deployment. He said he's not afraid of
what's ahead of us, but that he's afraid of what it'll be like going
back home. He looks at other college students w/o a clue as to what's
going on, and gets pissed off. B- said he always just wanted to work as
a bureaucrat, and that because of this he doesn't want anything to do
with that kind of work. He just wants to "go west" when we get back,
and figure everything else later.
March 11, 2003
There
are rumors today we may be at Camp Lejeune for two months. I can't
stand that thought of not being able to go overseas when the war's
still going on.
K- got his family hardship exemption today, so
he won't be coming with us. Some in the platoon say it's a bad omen --
that that goofy bast*rd was our good luck charm.
A bunch of us
went to Ruby Tuesday's at the mall last night. C- showed up with his fiancée. I feel bad for those two now that we're leaving. It just
doesn't seem fair to any of us.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 5, 2008 12:57 PM
Kieran Lalor is a former Marine reservist and Iraq veteran running
for Congress in New York’s nineteenth district. He’s also the founder
of Iraq Vets for Congress, a group of 14 Republican, pro-war vets running in districts from Maine to California.
Lalor,
32, and I spent many years together as rifleman in the same infantry
company based in upstate New York. We served in Iraq (although in
different platoons), and experienced the military’s transition into
wartime footing after 9/11.
I spoke with Lalor about our shared
military experiences, fallen comrades, his entry into politics, John
McCain, and how he’s hoping to make 2008 the year of Republican war
veterans elected to office. Excerpts:
SOLDIER’S HOME:
When we were over there in Iraq I barely thought about the politics of
it all. I had some sense of what was going, but didn’t pay to much
attention to it. Was it the same for you? When did you start really
thinking hard about the political aspect of the war?
LALOR:
Officially my campaign began on November 25, 2007, but it really began
on 9/11. One of my sisters worked in the north tower of the World Trade
Center. On September 11th I was living in here in Westchester, about 40
miles from Ground Zero. I was watching TV with a year of reserve duty
under my belt, so I was watching this as a U.S. Marine; watching our
country get attacked, wondering if my sister was dead or alive. I just
felt helpless. I didn’t ever want to feel that way again, and it just
woke me up. I realized our generation had a big challenge.
I
went through the 90’s and everything was hunky dory: a prosperous
economy, and at least the appearance of peace. I thought we were going
to have a free ride. Our parents' generation had the Cold War, our
grandparents had WWII and the depression. September 11th hit and I
thought, "OK, our generation has some work to do."
In Iraq I
don’t think I really thought about the politics except that I just
remember thinking of some of these pictures I had taken: the kids and
the American flag, the kids running up to us, or hanging out by the
gate [of our HQ]. If these scenes could have been brought home five
years ago the impression of the war could’ve been different here. We
got a lot of negative, and not a lot of positive.
It wasn’t
Iraq so much as the wider War on Terror that got me to run. My passion
became how do you secure a country of 300 million people, and protect
civil liberties.
Did anything specific happen while we were in Iraq that’s influenced your platform, or ideas about politics?
One
thing that informs my foreign policy view, and why I continue to
support the war in Iraq, is how we were running patrols 24/7 out in the
streets of Nasiriyah. We were being proactive. Well, the Italian
[coalition forces] relieved us, and their doctrine was react to
problems in the streets. And, they got hit [by a suicide bomber], and a
good number of them died. I think that the Italian strategy of
reacting, and staying home in the compound until something happened in
the streets, was basically American foreign policy up until September
11th. On a small scale our [rifle company’s] doctrine of being
proactive, and being omnipresent in the streets is what I believe is
the best post-9/11 foreign policy.
I asked Lalor about
Lcpl Glover, a very good friend of his who was killed in Iraq in 2006.
Glover didn’t serve with us in Iraq, but he joined the unit later and
volunteered for a subsequent deployment. He was killed along with
another Marine from our unit during a sniper attack in Fallujah. I wrote about his funeral for a post on Veterans Day last year.
Mike
Glover was one of my best friends, and in some ways I feel responsible
for getting him into the Marine Corps. I really feel like we owe it to
all those guys, especially Glover because I knew him so well. I don’t
want him to have died in vain. That happened three years after we got
back, and his death really made me more resolved. I talked to Glover’s
family a little bit about that aspect, and they don’t want his death to
have been in vain. I’ve also gotten calls from Gold Star Mothers and
Fathers saying thanks for carrying on my son’s legacy. It takes my
breath away, and I take it seriously.
I never talk about him in
a political context. I’m comfortable talking about him to you because I
know you. I told a story about him in a speech on Veterans Day, but I
asked permission from his family to mention him. But, he kind of
symbolizes all of the other guys [four marines from our unit killed in
Iraq from 2004-2006]. What’s ironic is that they all volunteered, and
didn’t have to go. It’s kind of eerie, but it says a lot.
Why did you form the group Iraq Vets for Congress?
To
help individual campaigns. If there are veterans who vote because a guy
is a fellow veteran, that individual person does that on his own. [I
formed the group] because politics has become a millionaire's game. A
high, high percentage of people in congress are millionaires. So, by
joining forces with other veterans we’ve been able to get more national
attention. We’re starting to break through nationally and what that
does it raise our individual profiles. And, the biggest thing is fund
raising. I have to raise more than a million dollars for this campaign.
I have about a hundred thousand so far, and my opponent already has a
million dollars.
Does the fact that McCain, another Republican veteran, is also running have any affect on your individual campaigns?
McCain
always brings out a lot of veterans who vote. He’ll bring out a few
thousand people that are veterans that don’t normally vote; that seems
to be a trend. Also, because of Iraq Vets for Congress I’ve been
contacted by the McCain campaign. What we offer him is 14 guys in
districts where there’s no republican Congressman. There’s two guys in
Ohio and two guys in Pennsylvania which are big states that you have to
win. We can help him, and he can help us. Also, we try to hammer home
that we want to make 2008 the year of the republican veteran. With
McCain on the popular ticket, the 14 of us, some other Vietnam vets,
and Gulf War vets running, that’s a theme we’re trying to build.
A
lot of people paint Republicans as chicken hawks: people who cheer lead
for war, but don’t want to put their lives on the line. Our campaigns
dispel that myth.
Is there a danger of placing too much of your campaign’s emphasis on the fact you’re a veteran?
I
don’t think that’s enough to get somebody elected, but it definitely
gets peoples' attention. There has to be a balance. You have to be more
than just a guy who served in Iraq.
What about the fact
that you were a reservist? We were called up twice on relatively short
notice, leaving behind or jobs, school, and families. What impact has
that had on you?
That kind of balancing act: living in a
couple of different worlds and being well-rounded, is very helpful
running for Congress. I’m not completely of the military mindset, which
I think is good. Being half in the military world, and half in the
civilian world gives you double the amount of perspective. I can see
the other side: what it does to employers, and what it’s like trying to
get back into the work force for example. Sometimes I’d go into
interviews and I’d feel like I was sitting in that chair because this
guy wanted someone to debate the Iraq war with–even though I had no
chance of getting that job.
How have people reacted on the campaign trail towards the fact that you’re a veteran?
People
have been pretty good. There’s been positive feedback. I don’t think
it’s enough to get elected. The Iraq war is a difficult issue for
republicans, and every republican is going to have to deal with it.
And somebody who’s served in Iraq can deal with it better than
anybody. When I get questions about it I say, listen: I risked my life
there, I lost friends there. If I thought it wasn’t making our country
safer I’d be the loudest voice saying that.
More
-
David Botti
|
Mar 4, 2008 10:17 AM
A disturbing new video out of Iraq has found its way onto the Internet
and set off a flurry of condemnations and demands to reveal the
identity of the U.S. serviceman involved. The video, which has been
removed from YouTube, depicted a U.S. Marine grabbing a puppy by the
neck and flinging the animal off a cliff. Due to the low quality of the
video, there was no way to see where, or how, the dog landed. Some are
still questioning the authenticity of this video, but it certainly did
look real enough to solicit this interesting analysis of the video from
media blogger Rex Sorgatz (via Gawker):
Logically, we know this soldier has possibly killed people in Iraq, so
it feels misplaced to vent about a puppy in a war zone; emotionally, we
find hurting a helpless puppy beyond reproach. If the video weren't
shot in Iraq (if it were, say, some tweens torturing a dog in a
backyard -- you'll find plenty of this on YouTube), the tension
wouldn't be there, and it wouldn't be today's viral hit. The
contradiction -- people vs. puppies; war vs. peace-keeping -- will
probably catapult this thing to network nightly news.
As this blogger chronicles, a number of people immediately set off on a hunt
to find the identity of the Marine involved in the incident. Some
mainstream media sources picked up the story looking into the Marine
Corps' response to the matter. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
The named Marine returned to Hawaii in October from Haqlaniyah,
Iraq, after a seven-month deployment, Maj. Chris Perrine, a Marine
spokesman, told the Honolulu Advertiser.
"We're still trying to figure out, is this a legitimate video?"
Perrine told the newspaper. "Was it edited? Is it [that Marine] who's
in it? We don't know. We'll find that out hopefully sooner rather than
later."
There
seems to be larger issues at play here than just a disturbing video.
Echoing Sorgatz's views on the matter, others are wondering why the
death of a puppy in the middle of a war is causing such outrage. From Cenk Uygur, an AOL media blogger:
But
I'm not writing to say what a bad guy this Marine is for throwing
the puppy like he does. That's obvious. I'm not writing to implicate
the whole Marine Corps for the act of two goofballs who are not
representative of our troops over there...No, I'm writing about our
reaction as a society. I have now seen this story everywhere from all
over the internet to the local news. Everyone is outraged. Are you
kidding me? We caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent
Iraqi civilians and we're outraged over a puppy?!
Some
may object to Uygur's characterization of the death of "hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians"--others may think it's right
on--but what's interesting is how debate over the tastefulness of the
video has grown to how we judge the degrees of right and wrong in war.
Is it because the puppy is a symbol of innocence? Is it because people
wonder what kind of conditions drove this Marine to throw a puppy off a
cliff? There are far more stories about U.S. soldiers adopting stray
dogs in Iraq. So, how does this fact relate to the behavior in the
video? Perhaps a discussion on the matter is just starting; there's a
lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of self-reflection still left.
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 28, 2008 12:01 PM
Touting their new study as the most comprehensive survey
of the U.S. military community in the past 50 years, Foreign Policy
magazine is presenting the results of its discussions with more than
3,400 officers holding the rank of major, or lieutenant commander, and
above. Here is a brief sample of the survey's findings:
These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding
demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it
was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the
officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago.
But asked whether “the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military,”
56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however,
that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the
demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”
The magazine also asked participants to rate the health of the
branches of service on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning they are
most concerned. The Army came in highest with 7.9, followed by the
Marine Corps with 7.0. The average score for all for all four branches
was 6.6. The officers also said they would advise against waging a new
war given the current state of the military. Despite these findings,
the survey also reported 64 percent of the participants characterized
morale as high.
The survey also asked officers their opinions on the governmental leadership of the nation. On a scale of one to 10, with 10 saying they have a great deal of confidence, the study reports these numbers:
- Presidency: 5.5 (16 percent had no confidence at all)
- CIA: 4.7
- State Department: 4.1
- Veterans Administration: 4.5
- Department of Defense: 5.6
- U.S. Congress: 2.7
To fix the state of the U.S. military,
the study found 40 percent of participants say special operations
capabilities should be expanded. In addition, there were more
circuitous ideas:
Above
all, though, the officers are clear that the chances for victory do not rest
on the shoulders of the military alone. Nearly three quarters of the officers
say the United States must improve its intelligence capabilities—the highest
percentage of any of the choices offered. Active-duty officers and those who
have retired within the past year give a much higher priority to nonmilitary
tools, including more robust diplomacy, developing a force of deployable civilian
experts, and increasing foreign-aid programs.
It's a fascinating study, and one that can help break down some
uniform misconceptions people have of the military. Now that this
study is concluded, let's see a survey of 3,400 corporals and sergeants.
More
-
David Botti
|
Feb 22, 2008 08:04 AM
Usually about this time every year my occasional moments of personal
reflection begin to ramp up as the war's anniversary draws closer. Back
then, in 2003, it seemed we were about to embark on the defining
moment of our generation. Five years later, those few months leading
up to the invasion seem to be diluted by time. They were not
singular months that would become labeled by history as the "War in
Iraq"--they would simply mark the starting point. Through the
distance of five years, it is difficult to remember what it felt
like for the United States to actually go to war.
Around
this time my reserve rifle company, having just come off of a year of
active duty in December, got the call for all Marines to show up for
anthrax shots. It came unexpectedly and without explanation. No one
said we were going to Iraq, but in his silence it was almost as if our
company commander was winking his eye and nodding his head. The
prospect of once again leaving our home so soon, left many of the
Marines bitter and brooding. Emotions were running so high
from our possible deployment and our recent return home that I barely
remember even watching the news. I have no recollection of following
the various UN resolutions and posturing by the U.S. and Iraq. I do
not remember hearing of other military units being deployed to Kuwait,
or the comments made by Secretary of State Powell at the UN regarding
Iraq's weapons program. The only news we waited for, or cared about,
was whether the phone call to mobilize came again.
If a moment
from that time can sum up the mood among my fellow Marines, it came
during a three-hour long car ride from our company HQ to my house near
Boston. My good friend was dropping me off on this way to Maine where
his young wife and two dogs lived. When we first got in the car I
remember him dropping into the driver's seat without a word, starting
the car, and turning on the radio--all the while staring straight
ahead. I know that his perceived unfairness of our situation--that we'd
just spent one year mobilized already--was grinding away
at any kind of happiness our recent homecoming had given him: he'd been
screwed by the military again.
We did not speak for a good
long while. Interstate 90 stretched before us into the night, visible
only in the car's headlights as occasional rest-areas flashed past. At
one point he asked, substituting his brooding expression with one of
hopefulness: "You don't think they'll really activate us again, do you?"
I
had no answer, and that seemed to make him more frustrated. A few
minutes later we had a burst of arguing over what radio station to
listen to. He wanted to change it, I wanted to keep it. I was
surprised how angry I was at him for such a stupid thing. He probably felt the same way about me. After we compromised I felt
better, and we barely talked for the rest of the drive. He dropped me
off at my parents' house, said goodbye, and two months later we were in
Iraq.
More
