The Blue State

Timeline of Idiocy

2003 - 'U.S.Military in Search of Arabic Translators' "Jennifer Ludden reports on the U.S. military's direneed for more translators who speak Arabic and other Middle Easternlanguages."

2005 - 'Army,Marines miss recruiting goals again, Morecash and appeals to parents, patriotism haven't reversed trend'"WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis, but it is a majorconcern — a battle here at home to win the hearts and minds of potential newrecruits."

2006 -' U.S.is recruiting misfits for army. Felons, racists, gang members fill in theranks' "After falling short ofits goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeatpronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success bythe White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military'sachievement of its woman- and manpower goals."

2006 - DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld: "As you know, you go to war withthe army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a latertime."

2006 - 'ArmyMeets Yearly Recruiting Goal'  "WASHINGTON - The Army isending its best recruiting year since 1997 and expecting similar success in2007, despite the weight of grim war news from Iraq, Army Secretary FrancisHarvey said."

2007 - 'ArmyMisses May Recruiting Goal' "With an array of special incentivesfor attracting recruits, the Army managed to recover from a 2005 recruitingslump, but the impact of the Iraq war and the strong domestic economy have madeit difficult to attract enlistees."

2007 - 'USArmy unable to afford translators, bomb-proof trucks' "GeneralPeter Schoomaker outlined an unfunded $10bn additional "wish list" ina memo to the congressional military committee" (included $13.3 MILLION forforeign languages translation.)

I think I found some clues where some of the problems lie, AND where GeneralShoomaker's money could have come from...

2007 - 'U.S. military continues todischarge gay Arab linguists, and Congress members seek hearing' "WASHINGTON:Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because theywere gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuablelanguage specialists go."

'Arabic Translator Firedfrom the Navy for Being Gay'

Since ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ became law, over 11,000 service membershave been discharged because of their sexuality.  The number of servicemembers who have left on their own volition, or have decided not tore-enlist because of this law is not documented. The government has spent over$363 million dollars in taxpayer money to implement this unfair legislation. Dozens of other countries, many of whom have fought side-by-side with oursoldiers, allow lesbians, gays and bisexuals to serve openly. Those are thefacts and they have nothing to do with a service members passion and skill toperform his duty.

So I pose this question to each and everyAmerican (civilian and military). Would you feel safer fighting side by sidewith an individual which is capable of telling you "they areyelling, watch out, the bad guys are over there...you should go theother way" OR would you rather be with someone that can tell you thestarting line-up of the NY Yankees?

I wonder how many hungry children (andadults) $363 million would feed? And as far as the argument "themilitary is no place for gays"...well we would probably have to go wayback to the very first army ever formed, then tell the first 10 soldiers"one of you is one of them and this is no place for you".

Ican't even believe that we are still having this conversation with the statethis world is in today.

I'd say this guy was qualified.

Prince Harry may still go to Iraq

I think it was commendable when Prince Harry insisted on going toIraq.

“There’s no way I’m going to put myself through Sandhurstand then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for theircountry . . . That may sound very patriotic but it’s true.”

AndI was taken back a little when General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of theBritish army, yesterdaysaid his decision that it would be too dangerous for the prince to bedeployed to Iraq was "final", the MoD said the situation could stillbe reviewed.

Too dangerous for a Prince that may want a career in the Army notto go to war? Well it made more sense as soon as it was brought to light thedanger would increase for his squad. al-Qaedaput a price on his head, and they would focus on him and the soldiers he wasresponsible for. I do not believe that soldiers should receive special treatmentbecause of who they are, however I do not think that soldiers should get"extra targeted" treatment either (when it can be helped).

Idon't have the answer of how the "special ones" should serve, I justfigure the "regular ones" have enough to worry about.

Pentagon: Extended Tours Taking Toll on Soldiers

After dodging roadside bombs, IED's and snipers, our troops step into an increaseof mental health problems, suicides and divorce mainly due to the newly imposedtour extensions says pentagon study.

Soldiers and Marines who have served multiple deployments in Iraq aresuffering more mental health problems, suicides and divorces, according to aPentagon study released Friday that studied troops who served overseas lastyear.

Army soldiers show a higher rate of mental health and family problems thanMarines, but that is due to their longer tours of duty, according to the ArmySurgeon General's Mental Health Advisory Team, which has conducted threeperiodic reviews of troop morale, concerns and mental health issues since thewar in Iraq began in 2003.

Our military has been stretched sothin, that the results have become just as (if not more) stressful to thesoldiers than serving in combat.

Asked about the effect of deployment on their marriages, more soldiersreported unhappy marriages (30 percent) than in previous surveys. Similarly, 20percent of soldiers surveyed last year reported they were getting divorced, upfrom 15 percent among soldiers in Iraq in 2005.

The suicide rate for soldiers deployed to Iraq was 30 percent higher, 16 per100,000 people, than in the Army in general, which had a rate of 11 per 100,000people.

As for overall morale, about 20 percent of soldiers reported high or veryhigh morale and about 45 percent reported low or very low morale. Thatrepresented a slight decline and the study suggested that the length and pace ofdeployments was a factor. The study described overall morale for both soldiersand Marines as low.

So next time you hear one of the pro-warconservatives talk about how the soldiers are behind the war, tell them to turn Foxnews off and GOOGLEthe truth.

Related article - Long War Taxing Troops: StressExperts Urge Longer Breaks From `Mortal Danger'

Hagel calls for new foreign policy realism

In a well thought out speech on Thursday, Chuck Hagel slammed the Administration's Middle East foreign policy strategy.  Of course, the golden rule in politics is not to criticize unless you have the audacity of hope to suggest an alternative.  Well, he did.  The Nebraska Senator called for a new era of foreign policy realism that consists of diplomacy with all countries, coupled with an end to flawed judgment about the use of force:

Here is an excerpt of the speech (via Washington Note):

We will fail to protect and advance America's interests -- in theMiddle East and around the world -- if we allow ourselves to be trappedin a self-constructed world based not on reality but on flawedassumptions and flawed judgment leading to flawed policy and dangerousmiscalculations.

The United States must approach the Middle East with a clearunderstanding of the complexities of the region. Our strategic policiesmust be regional in scope. . .integrating Iran, Iraq, Syria, theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict, violent Islamic extremism, access toenergy supplies, and political reform into a comprehensive policyequation.

In the latest issue of Time Magazine, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) responded to 10 questions from readers about his decision to break with the GOP on Iraq.

Bush to implement Kerry's '04 Iraq policy, but two years later

Thanks to pressure from Democrats and the military community, the Bush Administration is finally going to tell Iraqis that our occupation in that country is conditional.  The New York Times reports that the Administration is giving Iraqis a timetable to accomplish certain benchmarks:

Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next yearand beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that forthe first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones,like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of otherpolitical, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize thecountry.

Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with awithdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bushadministration would consider changes in military strategy and otherpenalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet criticalbenchmarks within it.

Let's get in the time machine and head back to 2004.  John Kerry's Iraq strategy centered around outlining to the Iraqis certain benchmarks that need to be accomplished in order to continue to get a full commitment of U.S. troops at their disposal.  In other words, John Kerry wanted to put more pressure on Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country, which Bush has yet to do until now.

That was two years ago.  President Bush has sat there for the last eighteen months and given the Iraqis unconditional military commitments.  Again, no benchmarks, no deadlines, no incentives for the Iraqis to pick up the slack.  Now it is too late to turn this around.  It is not a matter of progressives not wanting us to win -- unlike what Sean Hannity implies.  It's a matter of favoring a reality-based political climate, as opposed to invoking an ideology to fit an imaginary reality. 

The philosophical clash between realism and idealism is what is at stake this November.

(Video) Bill Clinton on the difference between philosophy and ideology

In a speech at Georgetown University, former President Bill Clinton underscored the differences between philosophy and ideology -- and that ideology has taken over Washington these last six years:

watch video clip

--- Partial Transcript ---

CLINTON: "The problem with ideology is, if you got an ideology you already got your mind made up -- you know all the answers.  And that makes evidence irrelevant, and argument a waste of time.  So you tend to govern by assertion and attack.  The problem with that is that discourages thinking and gives you bad results...if you are an ideologue, denial is an essential part of your political being."

It's about time we start electing lawmakers that believe in promoting a reality-based community in Washington, as opposed to an ideology.  We have tried ideology these last six years, and look where we are.

Saturday Editorial: How balance of power theory applies to Middle East

I have not been reporting on the daily violence between Israel and Hezbollah over the last week or two because you can get that news anywhere.  This is not an ordinary news site -- it is a political news site.  With that said, let me give a little political angle on what we can expect.  This is only for readers who like political theory.  For everyone else, this might be boring.

Israeli forces are touting the statistic that they have already destroyed one-third of Hezbollah's rocket capability.  In the short-term, that is a positive.  But when you think about it, Iran and Syria (especially Iran) stand to gain from prolonging the violence as long as possible (i.e. UN pressure on the Iran nuclear program).  So when Hezbollah runs out of rockets, Iran will simply just supply them with more -- and the violence will continue.

Assuming that the 72-hour ceasefire proposal between Israel and Hezbollah will not work out, even though we all hope it will, I really don't see the violence stopping anytime soon unless Hezbollah is destroyed or a deal is reached with Iran.  Neither will happen.  Ever since the insurgency in Iraq began, Iran has asserted its radical approach to reshaping the Middle East in its Shiite image.  Baghdad, after decades of Sunni domination, is back in Shiite control.  Now, thanks to this latest unfortunate turn of events, Hezbollah in Lebanon is feeling the Shiite influence as well.  So what we have here is what many academics are now referring to as a Shiite Crescent, which spans from Tehran, through Baghdad and over to Beirut.  Think of the phrase "Shiite Crescent" as Iran's sphere of political influence.  As of March 2003, before we went into Iraq, the Baghdad and Beirut fronts of the Shiite Crescent did not exist.  The larger the crescent, the better for Iran.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad took full advantage of a great political opportunity this summer.  President Bush and all the other democracies failed to prop up the new pro-western government in Lebanon that formed in 2005 after Syrian troops were kicked out.  With the government being weak there, Iran is having no problem using Hezbollah to sabotage that territory.  It's depressing that the White House never saw this coming.

But hold on a second.  Logically speaking, with a Shiite takeover of the Middle East, the Sunnis should resist.  After all, Hamas is Sunni -- yet they now support the Shiite group Hezbollah.  Why?  Since Israel is involved, the whole Arab world, Sunni and Shiite, is united in its support for Hezbollah.  That gives Iran a chance to assert their dominance while the Sunnis are distracted.  Sunni governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt are very worried because this Hezbollah violence could polarize the middle east and threaten the very existence of their governments.  Each of those Sunni-led countries have rebuked Hezbollah for the rocket attacks, while also footing some of the blame on Israel.

Putting it simply, the balance of power in the region is disrupted.  As is true about anything in politics, whenever there is polarization, fringe groups always see an opportunity because it legitimizes emotion-based political actions.  When fringe groups see that opportunity and are in control of the situation, they will continue to keep things polarized and unstable to maintain that same trend.  No wonder Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan are worried sick.

With all that said, this next part is really important -- and it pains me to say it.  Our war in Iraq is encouraging that same polarization.  Iran wants us to remain in Iraq, as does Hezbollah, because it fuels anger towards Israel and the west, which gives Iran the added legitimacy need to keep widening their sphere of influence.

The indicators continue to point towards more rocket attacks.  Sooner or later, Israel is going to give Iran and Syria an ultimatum.  Either Hezbollah stops, or Israel will launch air strikes into Syria.  But again, if we go by the balance of power theory, air-striking Syria is precisely what Iran wants Israel to do.  Again, polarization works to Iran's favor because it creates sympathizers on the Arab streets.  Air strikes on Syrian soil will polarize the situation even more -- nationalizing Arab support against Israel.  And again, for the last time, no matter what any conservative tries to tell you, polarization is what Iran wants, and it is precisely what moderate states like Jordan and Kuwait do not want.

Condoleezza Rice and the White House, until this point, have opposed an immediate ceasefire unless the long-term indicators pointed towards Hezbollah being permanently disarmed.  First, Hezbollah will never be disarmed.  The question is whether they will continue to have support?  And second, the longer that the fighting lasts without at least a temporary ceasefire, the greater the possibility that Israel will attack Syrian territory.  When that happens, the balance of power will be completely lost and the chances of a ceasefire will be greatly reduced.  That is why Condoleezza Rice needs to push for an immediate ceasefire.  The United States stands to gain from a ceasefire because the balance of power will be at least temporarily restored.

If there's one thing you need to remember when following the Middle East today, it's that all polarization, no matter which side is responsible for it, helps Iran (since they are on the fringe).  Of course, this is realism theory.  The White House subscribes to idealism.  So don't count on the White House taking this balance of power theory as seriously as I do.

-----------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: Rational Review, TPM Cafe Blogs, Terrorism News, Truth Dig, Blogger News Network, Crooks and Liars, Pol Forest.