The Blue State

Pentagon under-reports brain injuries

The number of troops that sustained brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan is 20,000 more than what the Pentagon claims:

At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were notclassified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have beenfound with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veteransrecords compiled by USA TODAY.

The data, provided by the Army, Navy andDepartment of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as manytroops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by thePentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in thePentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

Very sad that is takes a newspaper to audit the federal government for this information to come out.

Marines want out of Iraq

What will it take to end the war, you ask?  Robert Gates has proved he doesn't have the courage to do it.  The Democratic Congress can't either.  Other than waiting for the next president to act, it might take someone from the inside to pressure for a course correction. 

It appears that the Marines want out of Iraq, and wish to be sent to Afghanistan instead:

The Marine Corps is pushing to redeploy its forces from Iraq toAfghanistan to take the lead in combat operations there and essentiallyleave Iraq to the Army, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, raisedthe issue with Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week, the Timesreported. Senior military and Pentagon officials said supporters of theproposal, including some in the Army, believe that such a realignmentcould allow both services to operate more efficiently in the face ofstrains on the separate forces.

No major Marine units are among the 26,000 U.S. forces inAfghanistan while 25,000 Marines are among the 160,000 U.S. troopsthere, the paper noted.

The Marines are at their very best when their job is to capture territory, which they are more efficient at than any other force in the world.  But when they are told to sit and play defense, and be subjected to an urban insurgency, it goes against what their role has historically been.

Black military enlistment down 58%

Between 2000 and 2005, the last year these statistics were available, the number of black military enlistees dropped sharply by 58%.  Among whites, they declined 10%.  Among Hispanics, it was 7% over that same period.  The Boston Globe reports:

Defense Department statistics show the number of young black enlisteeshas fallen by more than 58 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army inparticular has been hit hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to thePentagon statistics, more than 42,000 black men and women applied toenlist; in fiscal year 2005, the most recent for which a racialbreakdown is available, just over 17,000 signed up.

The decline in enlistment applications among blacks is by far thefastest of any demographic group. Between fiscal 2000 and 2005, whiteapplicants declined by more than 10 percent. Hispanic applicantsdropped by almost 7 percent.

"African-Americans have been such a key part of the modern military,"said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst for the liberal-leaningBrookings Institution. "There's obviously been a degree where the blackcommunity in the United States has seen [military service] asculturally valuable and promoted it. That whole culture and valuesystem is at risk in the black community. That is a big, big change. Tome, it portends the possibility of a longer-term loss of interest. Itcan be tough to get it back."

Yes, the system certainly is at risk, that is for sure.  Also, being that we have an all-volunteer army, what health incentive do young volunteers have to put their bodies on the line with a right-wing reactionary in the Oval Office?

Supporting the Troops via Welfare.

I am getting sick and tired of listening to the Republicans (politicians) andconservative tv and radio commentators saying the democrats and liberals do notsupport the troops, when in reality it's the war we don't support. There seemsto be a catch 22 that goes along with the words "support the troops".For the republicans it only counts while they are engaged in combat, and for thedemocrats it's just a matter of getting them home. What about the soldiers thatare standing on line forfood stamps? or the 3.5% raise the Bushadmin didn't want to give the soldiers ($40.00 a month)?

Well get ready for a parade,  the first comprehensive review ofveteran's disability benefits after 51 years is coming to town! A 25 percentimmediate increase is being recommended for "themost severely disabled" (now THAT'S a whole lotta support goin' on)

The first comprehensive review of veterans’ disability benefits in 51 yearsrecommends that Congress and the Bush administration support an immediateincrease in compensation levels – of up to 25 percent for the mostseverely disabled – to recognize monetarily their reduced quality of life.

The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission’s thick report, reflectingmore than two years of work (Comment: we should all have to wait 51 years plus 2for a raise) , also wants all disabled veterans made eligible for“concurrent receipt” of both disability pay and an annuity based on yearsspent in service.

Let's take a look and see how our disabledvets are doing. Currently a vet that's 100% disabled, with a spouse and 5 children receives $35,892 per year ($690 per week). 100% disabled, this guy isn'tchanging diapers, mowing the lawn, painting the house, washing the car etc.(70%Disabled with 5 children and a spouse? $18,996)

Let's take a look and see how retiredcongressman are doing.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members ofCongress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on theircongressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired underCSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service underFERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

Congressman make more when they retire, than a 100% disabled vet does. Mostcongressmen and senators are very comfortable prior to retirement. Whether it'sfrom a business they own, a law firm, speaking engagements, (LOBBYISTS!), etc.I'll bet it didn't take 2 years to make that happen. Current salaries HERE.

Paying someone to keep a secret from you

Billions in tax money goes towards military contractors.  Yet, what they do is none of your business:

The State Department, which pays Blackwater hundreds of millions ofdollars to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, has stringent rules barringthe private security contractor from discussing with the media thedetails of its work, according to those familiar with the arrangement.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel.  This week the House passed a resolution 389-30 that "would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law," according to the New York Times.  That means the FBI would investigate any wrong-doing, and any allegations would be open to the public.  Depending on how the Senate votes, a Bush veto on this issue would likely get overridden.

Richardson blasts Edwards, Hillary and Obama

In a much anticipated foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Bill Richardson helped himself by taking a position that most Democratic activists agree with, and could vault him up a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire.  More importantly, if he does become a top-tier candidate, his popular view on the war may force Obama, Hillary and Edwards to take a more dovish position.  Richardson is the only major candidate in either party with a clear plan to get all troops out of Iraq.

Here is what I think was the best part of his speech today.  He starts with the issue of military contractors:

   We must also remove the private mercenaries.  As  President, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security!By utilizing contractors who are not subject to the rules of war or theregulations of armed forces, George Bush has further underminedAmerica's reputation and global leadership.

And then he zeroed in on the other contenders:

After seven years of this Administration, we have come to expect thatGeorge Bush will make the wrong call on the important issues.

   However, I expected more -- much more -- from my fellow Democrats  in this race.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have said we have towait and see how things go before we can know how many troops to bringout and how quickly. I say there has been enough waiting and seeing. Ifyou haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops outthen you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of Americaare seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- weneed to end the war.

Lastly, he exposed the fact that Clinton's Iraq plan would leave troops in Iraq for up to nine years:

Senator Clinton has reportedly said thatshe might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term --9 years from now. Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling tocommit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term --that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any moreyears of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong.

   Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan  could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq.

   That's changing  the mission, not ending the war.

Maybe a question for Edwards, Obama and Hillary in the next debate should be how would leaving ANY combat troops in Iraq help our overall situation AT ALL?  I want to listen to them try and defend that.

Obama is probably the closest to Richardson's position.  However, for Obama, it's not enough to say, "I was against the war before it started."  The past is history.  What do you want to do now?  How would keeping US combat troops in Iraq decrease terrorist recruitment throughout the world over the next generation?  Answer it, please.

In related news, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty explains that with the retirement of Republican Pete Domenici in Mexico, Bill Richardson could possibly decide to withdraw from the presidential race and run for that Senate seat instead.

REAL soldier takes issue with Limbaugh

VoteVets.org takes exception with Limbaugh.  This is a REAL soldier, whether Limbaugh wants to believe it or not.

BRIAN MCGOUGH: Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P."Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice amongall taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal incometax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in orderto raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

Rush Drops the "S" from his "Phony Soldiers" comment

Barack Obama said: "We've got to get the job done there and thatrequires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages andkilling civilians, which is causing enormous problems there"....Hedidn't mean the soldiers were doing this on purpose, he was referring to the"cluster-F**K" that was going on, and it needs to be handled.

John Kerry said: "Education, if you make the most of it, you studyhard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."...He didn't mean the soldierswere stupid, his reference was to George Bush, figuratively speaking Bush ISstuck in Iraq (and is about as sharp as a bowling ball). Kerry supports thetroops in an unconsciously competent way (he doesn't have to even thinkabout it) 

When you listen to the conservative commentators and media, they usuallyparaphrase it as "Obama said our soldiers are bombing and killing innocentpeople" and "Kerry called our troops dumb" (Sean Hannitypractically ANY night of the week)

Now let's take a look at Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark. Ithink we need to pick this apart to try and get an understanding of who Limbaughwas referring to.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to realsoldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to themedia.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud toserve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they'rewilling to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

The caller is clearly talking about actual soldiers. The "phony soldiers"appear to be soldiers that don't agree with the war, or veterans that speak outagainst the war. Conservative commentators may have spoke too soon when theysay Rush was referring to the people that aren't or weren't soldiers at all, butscammers. I say spoke too soon because according to Rush (even though he did say"soldiers) what he meant was:

LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-warmovement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phonysoldier" [Comment: he dropped the "s"] comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to playfor you. This is Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had thetranscript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point. Hereis -- it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds -- the entire transcript, incontext, that led to this so-called controversy.

Note is drops the plural. He refers to the transcript running about 3 minutesand 13 seconds...Rush edited 1 minute and 35 seconds out of it. Listen to hisedited radio broadcast HERE(transcript can also be read at the same link). For any conservatives that wouldlike to cross reference the typed transcript, it can also be found at Rush'ssite, or from the conservative blog WakeUp America.

I truly believe Rush meant any serving soldier or veteran that is against thewar and speaks out against it as one of the "phony soldiers". I saythis because it seems to be a trend among conservative commentators, radio showhosts etc. For example Melanie Morgan, when she was on The News Hour with JimLehrer and subsequently got banned from that show for her viciousness towardsJon Soltz. The post with videos can be viewed at 'MelanieMorgan banned from 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'.

Once again, listento the broadcast Rush replayed and read along either HERE(shows where edit starts and ends), HEREor HERE.

Blackwater secures new $92 million Pentagon deal

A few days ago, under the radar, the controversial military contracting firm Blackwater was awarded a defense deal worth $92 million.  It ensures that Blackwater will be doing work for the US government through September 30, 2011.

Here is what the deal includes:

Presidential Airways, Inc., anaviation Worldwide Services company (d/b/a Blackwater Aviation),Moyock, N.C., is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinitequantity (IDIQ) type contract for $92,000,000.00. The contractor is toprovide all fixed-wing aircraft, personnel, equipment, tools, material,maintenance and supervision necessary to perform passenger, cargo andcombi Short Take-Off and Landing air transportation services betweenlocations in the Area of Responsibility of Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan,Pakistan and Uzbekistan. This contract was competitively procured andtwo timely offers were received. The performance period is from 1October 2007 to 30 September 2011. The United States TransportationCommand Acquisition Directorate, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., is thecontracting activity

As you might have guessed, Blackwater Aviation is a branch of Blackwater USA, which has been criticized for its aggressive tactics against Iraqi civilians.

If we are trying to crack down on inappropriate wartime behavior by contracting firms, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates pledged last week to do, then this is exactly the opposite message we ought to send.  Why is the Pentagon essentially awarding a company for causing a diplomatic nightmare with a fragile government?