On the 60th Anniversary of Israel's independence, President Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset about Iran:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."   Read More »

"Hope the members of Congress enjoy their holiday break. I intend to enjoy mine."

So said the President during his "year-end" press conference on the 20th of December (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122001102.html).

Well, that is what I read he said. I was not able to actually watch the press conference, so I read the transcript.

And then I read it again.

President Bush spoke of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan briefly, saying that "[t]hese brave men and women are risking their lives to protect us and they deserve the full support of the U.S. government."

He followed that with two other statements expressing that he was grateful and/or "glad" that Congress funded OIF/OEF (without artificial timetables for withdrawals). Apparently, everything the President had to say about our troops at the end of 2007 could be said in 3 very short and--technically--redundant sentences.

Then the President proceeded to go into his priorities for 2008: "not raising taxes." In fact, he talked about not raising taxes nine times, using the word "tax" (or some variation thereof) 29 times.   Read More »

In 2006, Congress ordered the Secretary of Defense to assess the mental health needs of the Armed Forces and the ability of the DoD to meet those needs. As a result, the DoD created a Mental Health Task Force that found:

"The system of care for the psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's armed forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." Link

The unmet mental healthcare needs of the men and women we send to wage war in other countries are causing them to wage their own wars, within themselves and with others, in this one.

1st Lt. Whiteside faces criminal prosecution for trying to kill herself while serving in Iraq. Granted, when she had her psychotic break, she waved a gun around at her fellow soldiers to keep them away so she could successfully shoot HERSELF (TWICE) in the stomach. She did not, however, actually harm anyone else. Link

Research by CBS News revealed at least 120 vets per week in 2005 committed suicide. SEVENTEEN VETERANS COMMITTED SUICIDE EVERY DAY THAT YEAR. Link I wonder how many service members and veterans attempted to kill themselves the day that Lt. Whiteside tried to kill herself? I wonder how many succeeded?   Read More »

As much as individual presidential candidates want to talk about their health care plans or "outstanding" personal values, the fact remains that we are electing a WAR PRESIDENT. In 2008, we will be selecting a person who will probably spend the bulk of his or her first term managing military conflicts and performing extensive foreign policy damage control. In fact, the next President will inherit at least two wars and the costs of those wars, internally as well as internationally, will continue to grow long after the last service member comes home.

Consequently, Military Spouses for Change (www.militaryspousesforchange.com) is inviting ALL the candidates to Fort Hood, Texas (Killeen), on February 1st, to talk EXCLUSIVELY about the U.S. military, veterans affairs, foreign policy, and America's wounded warriors (from ALL conflicts, including Vietnam).

Fort Hood is the largest military installation in the United States. There are almost 46,000 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood and more than 24,000 spouses. On any given day, almost a third of these soldiers are deployed to Iraq and every week at least two soldiers from Fort Hood (on average) are killed in Iraq. (I am 34 and I know more widows than my mother.)   Read More »

come to DC!

Veterans and Military Families for Progress (www.vmfp.org) is a 501(c)(4) headquartered in Washington, DC. VMFP seeks to promote and protect the interests of veterans and military families through public awareness and political action. I am currently a member of their Government Affairs Committee and they are helping Military Spouses for Change (www.militaryspousesforchange.com) lobby for the improved dental and vision benefits for military families.

VMFP is having its biennial conference September 28th to September 30th at the Sheraton in Arlington (northern VA). The theme of the Conference is honoring our wounded warriors. There will be several panel discussions, one of which I will be participating in. REad on for more...   Read More »

I got this press release just a few minutes ago...   Read More »

One of the greatest criticisms of our nation and our use of the military is that we never act for anything other than our own best interests. Senator Biden said in last night's debate, "Where we can, America must." I think he is right. I believe our military can be a force for good and it can be used to save lives. I believe we can use our military for the right reasons. I believe we can use our power and wealth as a nation for the right reasons. And Senator Biden summed this up best when he said those five powerful words that I think should guide us as a nation when it comes to helping our own people, as well as people elsewhere, in need: "Where we can, America must."   Read More »

I was not surprised to see Edwards and Obama doing a little sparring. Nor did it go unnoticed that Edwards fired the first shot; however, it never got out of control.

I was impressed with Hillary making the point early on that the differences among the dems are minor whereas their differences with the republicans are major. I was impressed with Biden, who from the beginning, being given the chance--even encouraged--to say his opponents were "wrong" in their decision-making, refrained and chose to explain why he believed he was right in his decision making. I admire his commitment at focusing on why what he is doing is right as opposed to why what others did were wrong. I believe he and Hillary were VITAL in trying to maintain a strong dem front even while promoting their own candidacy. So often we use these primaries to tear each other apart, thereby undermining the credibility of the ultimate nominee. I am just hoping that this attitude of mutual respect and SELF-FOCUS will continue up until and through our primaries.

We must always return to why the dems are the better choice in general and then why x is the best choice in particular (with emphasis on self and resisting the urge to finger-point).

I think Biden summed this election up best in his final thought when he announced that the margin of error for the next President is nearly non-existent and, consequently, the President needs to be more intelligent than his advisors. I think that is an excellent point and something to look at when evaluating all our choices.

Biden is the only dem who has committed to participating in a June 6 Iraq-only debate that The Financial Times and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies are trying to stage.

Personally, I am frustrated by the lack of participation by the other dems. I wonder if it is going to come up in tonight's debate?

The Republicans have hijacked foreign and military policy as their area of expertise. Dems, I believe, are just as strong, if not stronger b/c I think they use military force more responsibly, and this notion that we are weak as a party in this area will not be dispelled by avoidance of debates on issues of national security, foreign policy, and war.

Last week the Army Times featured a piece about Spc. Justin Rollins. He was part of the 82nd Airborne Division when his group found a litter of motherless puppies. They rescued those puppies and brought them back to their camp. Justin had his picture taken kissing one of the pups. You could see the affection in his face, the tenderness in his hands, and it was beautiful.

The following day, Justin was killed by a roadside bomb. Even writing this post I am starting to cry again. Sometimes I simply cannot cope with this kind of loss. I can't wrap my mind around the loss of potential, of goodness, of hope.

In the past 12 months, more than one thousand soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Times had TWELVE pages containing rows upon rows of photos of the men and women we lost. The vast majority were under the age of 25. And somewhere on those pages were men like Justin.

I cut out the clip with the story about Justin and his photo with the puppy. I have it on my regrigerator. I look at it even though it makes me cry b/c I want to remember Justin. I want to be reminded of people who, under the ugliest conditions, maintain their humanity. I want to know about the soldiers who refuse to let go of the person they were before being sent to fight a war they don't understand and Americans do not support. I want to be reminded that in a place that is saturated with death, danger, and despair, some of our troops continue to manifest kindness, compassion, and love; they do not become the monster that some believe they have to be to do what they have to do in places like Iraq. THESE MEN are, in my mind, the real heroes of this war.

And I am asking that all of you remember this story about Spc. Justin Rollins. I am asking that you realize that the sacrifice our soldiers make is sometimes not one of life and limb, but of spirit and soul. And some soldiers, like Justin, try to hold on to all of those: life, limb, spirit, and soul.

So much loss. I really cannot wrap my mind around it.

Of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, I am compelled to support Biden's position on Iraq (he has a "five point plan" that I urge you to review at www.joebiden.com). Further, I find him to be the most credible and persuasive candidate because he has put so much time and thought into devising and articulating a comprehensive plan for Iraq (e.g., besides: "pull everyone out and let Iraq and its neighbors clean up the mess that our invasion made.").

What I find particularly appealing is that this plan recognizes the cultural reality of the Iraqi people but does not believe in just walking away from this situation. Instead, he advocates a change in direction that promotes stability and modifies our trooops mission there, thus enabling a safe and successful phased withdrawal.

I have to admit, as the wife of a Black Hawk pilot who has already been deployed once and faces another in 2008, I have strong feelings about getting our troops out of Iraq (I can't even REALLY think about it b/c it makes me so sick to my stomach with dread, worry, frustration, anger, sadness, fear), but I want it to be done correctly.

Using military force to quell sectarian violence and compel an artifice of cultural and political homogeny among three very distinct groups, all of whom have a history of intolerance, violence, and distrust toward one another, is painfully misguided and guaranteed to fail.

We have created a governmental system in Iraq that fails to recognize the fundamental incompatibility of the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds by requiring an unrealistic level and degree of commitment and cooperation among them. Our current policy, which refuses to acknowledge the incompatibility of the newly created Iraqi government with the reality of Iraqi lives, is the height of American, as well as Western, ignorance. We are imposing Western ideals on Iraq with no regard for whether those ideals are feasible, or even desirable, to its citizens.

I believe the presence of combat troops with the (current) mission of suppressing violence in isolated areas while remaining committed to a flawed governmental structure is unwise, to say the least. If we are going to commit military resources (machine and human) and American dollars to rebuilding Iraq, then it should be done while promoting a feasible governmental structure that actually has a chance at stabilizing the country.

I agree with Biden that we need to scale back the American presence significantly although not necessarily suddenly. Our military presence should be less OFFENSIVE and more DEFENSIVE, serving in a security (site protection) and training capacity while a new Iraqi government is created.

According to Sen. Biden, we should assist in the creation of a federal government with three autonomous states participating in a limited central governing body. I found Senator Biden's logic regarding this idea quite compelling:


More..   Read More »

In honor of the three service-members who have been abducted, the 3,395 service-members that will never know about that abduction because they are dead, and the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who have had war and death thrust upon them, I would like to address why I am supporting Sen. Joe Biden instead of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (both of whom I admire and respect a great deal).

I am voting on the issue of Iraq this year. I have had to turn away from candidates I expected (and everyone who knew me expected) to support because the cost of this war, both human and financial, has become too great to dismiss as "just" one of many issues. Yes, there are many other important issues facing America, but the next POTUS will be consumed with managing this War and our nation will be consumed with funding this War (which has cost more than 425 BILLION dollars to date). As long as we continue to hemorrhage funds and commit human bodies to this War, we cannot effectively address many of those other issues.

Bobby Kennedy, in 1968, said the following about that year's presidential election: "[T]his is a year of choice -- a year when we choose not simply who will lead us, but where we wish to be led; the country we want for ourselves -- and the kind we want for our children. If in this year of choice we fashion new politics out of old illusions, we insure for ourselves nothing but crises for the future -- and we bequeath to our children the bitter harvest of those crises."

If this nation chooses a Republican president, it will do so based upon old illusions (that military might can build nations; that war is necessary for peace). If this nation chooses a Democratic president who lacks the experience and vision to RESPONSIBLY remove our troops from Iraq, it will do so based upon new politics born of old illusions (that nations can be built without military support, that wars end when troops leave). The old illusions rely too heavily on our military and the new politics rely too little on it--at least when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done in Iraq.

If we leave Iraq before changing the direction it is headed in, Iraq will lack the stability necessary for SUSTAINABLE peace. The war will not end for America if we simply remove our troops from Iraq. American fighting may temporarily cease, but the war WE started will not be over. The chicken will come home to roost, so to speak. One such chicken that continues to haunt this farm master-minded the largest and bloodiest attack on our country that we have ever suffered at the hands of a foreign power. Afghanistan should have taught us that when we enter and leave nations in crisis on a whim, it does not pay to be short-sighted in our understanding of terms like war and peace.

Consequently, Iraq makes 2008 our "year of choice." For America as a whole, this is the year where we choose WHERE we want to be led. For the Democratic party, amidst a field of appealing candidates, we need to go one step further, looking not only at where our candidates can lead us, but at HOW they plan on getting us there. This is where, at this point, Biden rises above his contenders.

There are now two wars that we must take equally seriously, our own and those of the Iraqi people. Biden is the only candidate that realistically addresses both wars. I believe we should vote in 2008 not only to bring our troops home, but to do so in a way that will not necessitate their return. In order to do this, we must help Iraq end the civil war that our invasion opened the door for. With this in mind, I strongly encourage you to look at Senator Biden's website and compare his plan for Iraq with Hillary's and Obama's.

2008 is OUR year of choice and we MUST choose wisely.

Secretary Gates' announcement that all Army deployments would be extended to fifteen months came on the heels of a recommendation for shorter deployments and/or longer intervals between deployments by the government's most recent Mental Health Advisory Study of anxiety and depression among Soldiers and Marines deployed in Iraq. The study found an increase in mental health and marital problems among the 1,320 Soldiers and 447 Marines surveyed. The Final Report, dated 17 November 2006, stated that although the main cause of mental health problems was the amount of exposure to combat conditions, Soldiers reported deployment length and marital problems as the main source of their non-combat related stress (Marines reported less non-combat related concerns due to their shorter deployments).

Soldiers suffered higher rates of mental health problems than Marines, unless they shared "similar deployment lengths and histories." Soldiers with multiple deployments were more likely to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") than soldiers deploying for the first time. Likewise, Soldiers deployed for six months or longer were more likely to suffer from PTSD than Soldiers deployed for less than six months. Not surprisingly, marital concerns have increased with recent deployments (most likely related to the length of the deployments). In fact, TWENTY percent of the Soldiers--and thirteen percent of the Marines--surveyed reported a planned or pending separation or divorce. Overall, the Study found that â??deployment length was related to higher rates of mental health problems and marital problems.â?? One of the key recommendations for improving Soldier and Marine mental health and well-being was to â??[e]xtend the interval between deployments to 18 â?¦quot; 36 months or decrease deployment lengths to allow additional time for Soldiers to re-set following a one-year combat tour.â??

The Final Report can be read in its entirety at Link.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

While others are certainly entitled to their opinion about the manner in which we should conduct this "war" (total disregard for large-scale and arguably inhumane levels of collateral damage and destruction of religion structures), the probability of those tactics succeeding is very, very, very low. Dessimating the Iraqi population will not result in control of the country and even if it did, that control would be temporary and exist in a completely destabilized and hostile Middle East.

In a traditional/conventional war where the enemy was CONTAINED within identifiable geographic borders, then the bloodbath that you are suggesting as a method of conducting a war could possibly succeed (if you are looking for the surrender of the leaders and pacification of the population from sheer physical and structural devastation). Look at what we did to Japan in WWII. Our use of indiscriminate and devastatingly overwhelming force against that country led to its surrender.

This, however, is not a traditional or conventional war. We could kill millions of Iraqis and destroy every vestige of Iraqi infrastructure but that would NEVER short-circuit the will to fight of its inhabitants, both the insurgents and the nationalists. Additionally, the surrounding countries, and most of the world, would not accept it. Middle Eastern countries would not allow us to behave in such an overwhelming and indiscriminately bloody manner; they would intervene, economically, politically, and possibly militarily.

Even if, hypothetically, the leaders of the Syria or Iran did nothing in the face of this kind of warfare and wholesale destruction (which I think is HIGHLY unlikely), the Muslim fundamentalists within those countries, as well as those in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, would insert themselves into Iraq, Kuwait, the Sanai, Isreal, and Egypt to destroy Americans and anything or anyone associated with them. In fact, world-wide retaliation would occur and, most disturbingly, occur in a manner that would create battlefields out of U.S. and Western buildings, neighborhoods, or even cities. What kind of collateral damage would you accept once these enflamed Muslims-turned-terrorists entrench themselves in U.S. buildings? And how many countries would choose to align themselves with us if we behaved in such an abhorrent manner? Look at the good will we have lost by the occupation and collateral damage we have inflicted to date. We would quickly find ourselves very much alone in protecting American lives and interests.

Some people claim we need to be rational (e.g., unemotional, uncaring) in dealing with Iraq and thus use unfettered force to gain control of the country. Unfortunately it is an oversimplification to declare that we can destory the "monster" by becoming a monster. Becoming a monster ourselves is neither rational nor desirable (not to mention humane) because the monster we face is not contained within one country, or even several countries. This monster is somewhat like bamboo. Bamboo roots spread outwards instead of downwards and its stalks break through the surrounding ground, forever and indefinitely expanding the area it covers. You can chop down a million bamboo stalks but it will continue to regrow where you cut it down while simultaneously spreading out further and further from its place of origin. Military dominance in Iraq is like cutting down bamboo stalks, a temporary but superficial triumph over one particular section of what is really a vast and ever expanding underground bamboo network.

Using military force to dominate and control the Iraqi population and borders is unwise, not only because it is unlikely to happen without large scale violence against civilians but because our attempt to control Iraq by such inhumane methods would, in my mind, immediately enflame and destabilize the entire Middle East. Are you prepared for a war with several countries and an escalation of terrorist activities elsewhere in order to "win" the war in Iraq through those methods? Actually, it isn't even a matter of whether you or anyone else is "prepared" for that, our military CANNOT sustain a war with several countries while simultaneously protecting American interests in the US, Africa, and Europe. America will die by falling on its own bloodied sword.

What has happened to our pursuit for justice in the one place we have every right to be? Word is that the Taliban is gaining strength again in Afghanistan. Bin Laden might as well not even exist for all the success we have had in finding him. I often wonder, if we had devoted hundreds of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars to Afghanistan, would Bin Laden still be free? Would the Taliban still exist in any substantial way? Would we still have the respect of the international community? Would we have prevented the spread of anti-American sentiment from the Middle East to Africa and Europe?

I think we all know the answers to those questions. The one question that I would like answered is why the country that actually attacked us watched as we invaded and occupied a nation that, in my opinion, had no intention of attacking us, EVER. When will Bush and his "hawk" advisors be held accountable for this?

The Democratic party has a dilemna. The promise to "bring our troops home" is sincere, but Congress realistically is not empowered to truly effect any change in our current war policy. It was the intent of the Framers of the Constitution that the President consult with Congress regarding the waging of war with foreign nations; as a result, Congress alone was made responsible for funding the military activities initiated by the President. Sadly, this vision of cooperation never manifested itself. Congress has never refused to fund troops that the President has deployed, regardless of how the members felt about it. It is politically fatal to cease the funding of an existing military action b/c the President can, and will, accuse Congress of "abandoning" our troops. Congress has yet to find a way around this. The Dems face a real danger here because the general public does not realize that: a) our political process was created specifically to be tedious and slow moving; and, b) Congress really, practically speaking, lacks the tools necessary (according to its enumerated powers in the Constitution) to force the President to change his current course of action.

Consequently, we have a political reality in which Congress cannot use the purse strings (or any other device for that matter) to influence Presidential decisions vis a vis the use of military force. Yet the Dems won back Congress by promising to try to end the war. At this time, the best the Dems can do is force the President and the Republican party to show their complete disregard for the will of the people who elected them by: a) making announcements refusing to withdraw troops; b) refusing to consider alternate plans for Iraq; and, c) refusing to admit that the actions they have taken thus far have brought us no closer to peace or stability in Iraq. The President and the Republican Party must be forced to take responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the blood bath that is Iraq.

The only chance we have as Dems is the election of a Democratic president. Our candidates, however, must be careful what they promise America b/c Iraq has become so volatile and so attractive to other radical Islamic groups (as a result of Bush's woefully inadequate foreign policy decisions), remedying the situation will neither be simple nor quick. Our candidates need to dispel the stereotype of being weak in the area of foreign affairs and, probably more importantly, convince the public that it supports our troops and our military. I think the best way to do this is to focus on funding military facilities, improving benefits for the soldier and his/her family, and committing significant resources to VA programs.

The Dems have a real opportunity here to compete with the Rep party in the areas of foreign policy and national defense. As the wife of an army aviator, I am continuously telling others that I feel a great deal of pride and love for our military, and it is out of that love that I believe in exercising restraint and using good judgment when faced with the temptation to deploy our troops. I suggest that maintaining a strong military force is really an extension of American domestic policy (as opposed to being in the sole domain of national defense) because the success of our military relies on American sacrafice, American service, and American tax dollars. The Dems need to show that they consider the strengthening of our military as another facet of domestic policy so that Reps can no longer use the military to bolster their alleged "strength" in matters of national defense.

If we can make the strengthening the military a Democratic issue, then perhaps we can weaken the allegiance many Americans, particularly those associated with the military, have to the Republican Party.

On April 11th, Secretary Gates announced that all current and future Army tours in Iraq and Afghanistan will be extended to 15 months. Perhaps the President does not think that three extra months is a significant amount of time, but for the soldiers at war and spouses at home, it is an eternity.

THE HUMAN COST OF THIS MISGUIDED AND POORLY PLANNED INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ TRANSCENDS THE PHYSICAL CASUALTIES AND LOSS OF LIVES. Families are also paying an emotional and psychological price for Bush's failed foreign policy: spouses, children, parents. The Army worries about troop morale and retention but continues to demand greater sacrafices of its soldiers without considering the consequences of those sacrafice. Children are losing parents to death and divorce. Soldiers are going on their second or third OR FOURTH tour and facing increasingly difficult acclimations to life outside of the war zone. Americans are once again witnessing governmental disregard for their concerns with the actions our military is taking.

Instead of lengthening servicemembers' tours, the Bush Administration should have RECONSIDERED THIS POLICY OF OCCUPATION. One would think the fact that our military resources are rapidly being depleted (and our forces are painfully overextended) would compel the Administration to reevaluate its goals for Iraq in particular as well as its priorities for international relations in general. Obviously, this has not happened.

Wasn't there an expression defining insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly while each time expecting a different result? I believe the unrelentless pursuit of a failed policy in Iraq certainly qualifies.