The Mercenary’s Cookbook

Sure, we aren’t seeing the Iraq War on the news so much these days, but politicians are looking for every possible opportunity to wrap themselves in your uniforms, and use your bravery to make any policy of their’s beyond criticism, because to criticize them is to criticize you brave soldiers, who have given so much so that they can pass their farm subsidies for ethanol to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. To be against corn is to spit in the face of all you fight for, the blood you’ve shed, the comrades you’ve lost. Can you look them in the eye and say their friends died for nothing and vote against corn? 

It’s not coming. It’s been here since the first boots hit Afghanistan. You’re sacrifices have been used for six years to ensure the attachment of endless riders and pork barrel projects, keeping the world safe for research into the potential of pig farts to ween us from the petrol of the Middle East. What un-American would say this is a war for oil? Just listen to the pols, and you know it’s a war for a new feeder road to I-10 in case the terrorists bomb the Port of Houston. They’ve wrapped themselves in your uniforms they never wore for you, dear friends. This multi-million dollar defense contract for a liscensed masseuse was for you. What patriotic American could deny you their millions?

Now, the Presidential campaign is under way, and it’s all about you. The Obama campaign wants to make the case that we ought to have a good reason to leave you in harms way, and that you have done your jobs, and it’s time for you to come home because it’s now up to the politicians to make it work. McCain wants to make the case that having been in war, we will finally win this thing some time after his re-election so you can come home victors. Then maintain a military presence, they way we keep you in Korea.

Yes, everyone knows you want what they want, and that for your sakes, we should stop denying you and give it to them.

Turns out, what you want isn’t nearly as clear cut as they would make it. Some recent surveys show the steady trend toward the Republican Party among military families since Vietnam may be reversing course:

 

A Los Angeles Times survey of 1,467 people, including 631 soldiers, veterans and their families, in late 2007 found that 57 percent of military respondents believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting — nearly the same as the overall population (60 percent).

Asked which party they trusted most to handle important issues, the military families chose Democrats over Republicans 39-35 percent, compared to a 39-31 percent ratio among the general population.

In its annual reader surveys, the Military Times specialist news group found Bush’s approval rate among the military had plummeted from 60 percent in 2005 to just 48 percent in 2007.

No doubt Obama will use this to claim you want to leave. And some of you do.  No doubt, this won’t keep McCain from claiming that as a former POW, he is you, and therefore what he wants is what you want. And some of you do. Truth is, you’re pretty evenly split right now. 

That won’t keep them from making you out to be some monolithic voice. Take a look at the dustup over the weekend about Clark’s criticisms of McCain’s foreign policy experience:

Clark says that being a POW, no matter how honorable, doesn’t make his foreign policy any less stupid. For McCain’s part, he said he had been Swiftboated, which, if you’re a Democrat, suggests Clark was lying about McCain’s service, or if you’re a Republican, that Clark was exposing McCain for the fraud he was. Or is that now vice-versa? The point is, as two men who served, they are you, and therefore can’t criticize each other without criticizing you, and to disagree with either one of them is to disagree with yourself. And I’m not talking the fake soldiers like Kerry – or McCain, depending on which one you feel was or wasn’t Swiftboated — but the real, honest to God heroes like Kerry. Or McCain. Depending. Because lord knows it can’t be both. Right? 

The fact is, no one speaks for what you want  but (drum roll….) — YOU.  As the polls show, you, like the rest of the country, come from all walks of life and political persuasions (ultra-liberal blogger Kos served during the first Gulf War), and like the rest of the country, you prefer one candidate or the other. Some of you believe in ethanol. Some don’t. Some think we should stay. Some don’t. And everyone who hasn’t been there wants to find you, provided you agree with them, so they can trot you out to bolster them. Better we all just deal with the fact that you don’t always agree with you, and for every one of you, there’s another you, except ten-times-braver and more bad-ass than you, who thinks you’re full of shit. Yet they’re out there serving their country for you anyway. Aren’t you lucky?

In Vietnam, soldiers partook in the holy herb of the era as much as the hippies back in the States. So what is the drug of “choice” among Iraq Vets?

 Loading ...

Here’s a hint.

One that does what it should
One that wont make me feel too bad
One that wont make me feel too good

Here’s your answer.

I never understood why the military would be so concerned with limiting what soldiers can access on the Internet. This is what led to the crackdown on military web used called “Web 2.0″:

This winter, the Air Force, as the Pentagon’s point agency for “cyberwarfare,” banned access from official networks to many blogs, declaring that they weren’t “established, reputable media.” The Air Force didn’t seem concerned that international jihadists had long ago latched onto websites as cheap, effective tools for sharing ideas. Indeed, the Air Force’s ban was part of a widening military crackdown on the so-called “Web 2.0.” Mostly, Website-banning Pentagon officials were worried that U.S. troops might inadvertently release secret information on the Internet.

The flip side of this is that the military can also prevent Americans from finding out things about the war. Sgt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp became the target for many pro-war pundits for his accounts in The New Republic, when they were thought to have painted too grim a picture of the daily life of soldiers, thus demonstrating how naive people like Malkin really are — Beauchamp’s stories were tame compared to many I’ve heard.

However, a case can be made to limit what information people outside the military can get. What soldiers post on their blogs might give away, hower inadvertantly, information that could be used by insurgents and the like. We aren’t fighting a Superpower, where keeping our military budget secret made sense - what can an Afghani sitting in a cave do with that? So the old excuses for government secrecy and lack of accountability do not hold up as well as they did when we were facing down another SuperPower. What you don’t want is for terrorists to figure out troop movements, scope out targets, or study tactics.

Yet, by limiting access, you also limit the ability to share information, which has been hampering the military, who has fallen far behind terrorist groups who have become quite Internet savvy.

In a three part series in the Washington Independent by David Axe, we learn that the Army’s solution is a MySpace that has people sign up and limit who gets access to their posts:

The military MySpace – call it “MilSpace” – would eventually include the previously mentioned blogging function, allowing officers to develop and share ideas and tactics without necessarily having to work through the military’s lumbering, labyrinthine and strictly hierarchical chain of command. MilSpace and its blogs are part of a network of online discussion forums, created by the Center for Company-Level Leaders, that Lt. Col. Tony Burgess, Kimball’s boss, called a “virtual front porch” for hosting soldiers’ conversations.

The forums have their roots in the late 1990s, when they were a private project overseen by several young officers. In 2002 the Army officially sanctioned the forums. After months of work, the MilSpace addition went live in January this year, and the blogging function launched in late April. With each successive new feature, this “virtual front porch” has gained new users, new admirers in the senior ranks and a more prominent position in the Army’s emerging Internet strategy. “I would definitely characterize it [the Mil-Space blogs] as a success,” Kimball told The Washington Independent. “Anecdotally, conversations are more vibrant than they’ve ever been.”

 Lest you take too much heart, Part II, shows that where the army has taken steps forward, the Coast Guard and Navy have shown us how not to utilize the web:

The Coast Guard problem is one that a senior official described when addressing alleged inaccuracies in online news reports about the service’s over-budget shipbuilding program. “We are encountering an interesting phenomenon in the ‘blogosphere,’” Rear Adm. Gary Blore said in a Mar. 11 news conference. “A blog can be anything you want it to be,”

The next day, events unfolded that resulted in the Coast Guard publishing a faked first-hand account of an at-sea rescue on its official “Coast Guard Journal” blog.

That particular blog had been a centerpiece of a new Internet campaign by the nation’s fifth military service. In fact, Capt. Jim McPherson, the Coast Guard’s top public affairs officer, cited this blog in February, asserting his service was ahead of the pack when it came to the military services embracing the Internet.

So, factual accounts are shut down, fictional accounts promoted, while terrorist groups have been exploiting the freedom of the Internet at every opportunity.  One day, our government may simply have to accept, as China is finding out, that there is no Green Zone in cyberspace.

They made a big deal out of Barrack Obama not wearing a tie like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . Yet, were you aware of the Bill Clinton/Ayatollah Khamenei connection? Look very carefully at what book the Supreme Leader of Iran is purchasing in this picture:

 That would be a copy of Bill Clinton’s auotobiography, My Life. Is this the closest thing to pornography in Iran an oblique passing reference to Monical Lewinski?

One of the more entertaining reactions by the Press to Scott McClellan’s very critical new book about his days in the Bush Administration, has been this claim that they had been tough all along. David Gregory defended his profession by claiming, “I think the questions were asked.” Those of us who turned elsewhere for our information remember things a bit differently.

Eric Alterman expressed the frustration many felt at the time when he wrote an entire column basically asking the questions he wished reporters would ask that turned out to be rather prescient.  And he wrote it in 2002. Here’s the list of just some of the questions Eric Alterman wanted asked in 2002:

Why did the Bush national security team ignore the Al Qaeda briefing it received from President Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, in the fall of 2000?

Why has no one, apparently, been fired, anywhere, despite a clear systemwide breakdown?

Who besides Rudy Giuliani thought it was a smart idea to build a terrorism crisis control center inside an obvious terrorist target?

What about those detention camps Ashcroft wanted for the purposes of indefinitely incarcerating US citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants,” while stripping them of all constitutional rights, including the right to trial? Is that still happening? That sounds kinda bad.

How did Bush decide on war with Iraq without consulting the uniformed military, the intelligence agencies, the UN, NATO, the Republican national security establishment–including both of his dad’s secretaries of state and his National Security Adviser–the Republican Party in Congress, the Democratic majority or just about anyone who did not already want to go to war with Iraq?

Got any real evidence about those nukes Saddam is building? Got any real evidence regarding his CBW and WMD delivery capabilities? Why is he not deterrable again?

What happens with Iran if Iraq collapses? 

But this one has to be the kicker: “Is anybody thinking about this stuff?”

Yes. They just didn’t have jobs in DC.

Update: Digby reminds us of Mr. Wolcott’s efforts.

Update II: And Greenwald reminds us of what happened to Donahue.

We’ve heard a lot about the housing bubble, and how it’s dragging down an already slowing economy. What you probably didn’t know - or rather, you did, but most anybody else doesn’t - is that foreclosures have hit military towns the hardest:

In the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average, according to data compiled by research firm RealtyTrac Inc. in Irvine, California. As military families like the VerSteeghs signed up for the initial lower rates and easier terms of subprime mortgages, the number of people taking out Veterans Administration loans fell to the lowest in at least 12 years.

“We’ve never faced a situation like this, not in the Vietnam War, World War II, or the Korean War, where so many military are in danger of losing their homes,” said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a Washington-based advocacy group started in 2002 by Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans. “No one asked them for their credit score when we asked them to fight for us.”

Foreclosures in towns around military bases, including Norfolk, Virginia, have increased 217 percent in the first quarter compared to last year because military families, who are often on the move, were an easy target of the predatory subprime lending. So families can find their loved ones being sent on extended tours, only to return to bankruptcy or homelessness.

Fortunately, the bipartisan Casey-Isakson Bill is being floated to give military families some breathing room: 

This legislation would specifically amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief law in the following ways:

 

1. For all servicemembers who incur a serious illness or injury during their military service, the foreclosure grace period provided in current law would be extended from 90 days to one year.
2. A servicemember who, within one year after completing their military service, files a claim with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall be protected from foreclosure throughout the application process and until 30 days after their claim is adjudicated.
3. “Serious injury or illness” is defined as rendering the servicemember medically unfit to perform the duties of their rank.

Another bill that would seem to be a no-brainer is the one floated by former Assistant to the Reagan’s Secretary of Defense and current Democratic Senator Jim Webb to extend educational benefits for our returning veterans who have already gone way beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected in the call of duty. Seeing an obvious opportunity in an election year, the Bill has already gotten the support of Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Senator John Warner (R-VA). Who would oppose such a thing? Remarkably, the greatest remaining Iraq War hawks, George Bush and John McCain. (McCain managed not to be present for the final vote). The reasoning being that too much generosity might harm retention if soldiers have something to look forward to when they move on to civilian life.

Seen in the same light, I suppose foreclosure can be a net positive as well. It’s hard to leave when you’re guaranteed to have a tarp over your head.

What could the overly-spunky, more-than-occasionally annoying Rachael Ray, host of twenty-minute meals, have to do with national security? No, it’s not because she’s good with a knife. We’ll give you a hint: see if you can spot the “hate-couture” in this photo:

A few months after doughnuts became a presidential campaign issue, they stood at the center of a storm created by right-leaning bloggers. This was a story about “donuts and dumb celebrities” who were “mainstreaming terrorism” to make a buck, asserted Little Green Footballs and Michele Malkin. And Atlas Shrugs revised a bell-ringing catchphrase thusly: “TIME TO MAKE THE JIHAD!”

Suddenly, Dunkin’ Donuts was accused of promoting terrorism, thanks to the wardrobe choices of Rachael Ray, its celebrity spokesman, during an online advertisement. According to the bloggers, she had decided to embrace “hate couture” by wearing a keffiyeh, a scarf popular in the Arab world and preferred by Yasir Arafat and other Palestinian militants during their rise in the West Bank and Gaza.

Now, Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled the ads. Not since the Little Mermaid video cover was found to have palaces shaped like phalluses have our impressionable children been this safe.

We believe there is a far greater threat to our National Security. Watch, if you dare:

  Does that skirt look like anyone’s headscarf that we know?

You may have heard that Senate Republican Candidate for Ohio, Bob Schaffer, got burned when it was revealed that he went parasailing while on a fact-finding trip to uncover human rights abuses in the Mariana Islands, all on disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s dime. Abramoff, who considered the Mariana islands a “perfect petri dish of capitalism”, chose someone he thought would keep the Darwinian experiment pristine. Thus, Schaffer got a nice vacation to look the other way from any exploitation of foreign workers.

Today, new journalism icon Josh Marshall reveals that Schaffer is on the witness list of a Federal investigation into the business dealings of a nonprofit which Schaffer was a member of the board.

If Abramoff wasn’t already in jail, we’d suspect these FBI agents were angling for a free ski trip.

In the upside-down world of the Bush Administration the FDA is supposed to prevent private entrepreneurs from voluntarily testing their cattle for Mad Cow, the EPA is supposed to stop states from voluntarily enacting emissions standards, and the Veteran’s Administration is supposed compare PTSD to football injuries:

VA secretary Peake suggested some of the concern about post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury has been overblown.

Many of the brain injuries are serious but some of them are akin to what anyone who played football in their youth might have suffered, Peake [said].

That’s right. On the heels of a report saying veteran suicides could outnumber casualties, the VA secretary is saying we’re making too much of PTSD. After all, they volunteered for this, right?

The article goes on to say that the Vietnam Vet Peake was talking to found the answer “unsatisfying”, but I think the award for best response goes to VoteVets’, Brandon Friedman :

Frankly, Peake’s casually dismissive attitude sucks.  Being hunted by other humans every day for 15 months, watching your friend bleed to death, and having your brain flattened like a pancake from a thousand-pound detonation are not comparable to football injuries.  

And that’s all I have to say about that.

The West, long since written off as red state, is looking more blue all the time. It is central to Obama’s strategy for rewriting the political map, by putting traditionally red states in play to offset losses in Florida or Ohio, which have traumatized Democrats in recent elections. Central to such a strategy is Colorado, which is why the Dems are holding their Convention here. Though the state’s wilderness has always attracted a strange mixture of hunters, survivalists and hippie environmentalists, Colorado has a huge influx of people who offset some traditionally libertarian elements.

So, the cosmopolitan city centers, mixed with rural voters more receptive to the populist message, make the West possible Ground Zero of 2008.

Helping matters in Ohio and Colorado is the fact that the major players in the Republican Party in these states are suffering from multiple investigations, corruption and sex.

Today demonstrated just how much the state of the state has changed. Today, during a speech, McCain was shouted down by protestors chanting “Endless War!”
 

One doubts the Democratic Convention can hope to come close to the disarray of 1968, when you not only had a war, but assassinations seemed commonplace. But there are definitely some Democratic activists around to make this hostile territory for Republicans.