Maliki Feels the Pushback

Someone probably blistered Maliki good--via video conference call or perhaps in person. Someone had to have felt the rage of John McCain today. Somewhere, Bob Gates is smiling, and, somewhere, the cracks in the rotten edifice of this administration showed a little more clearly than before. They cannot control Maliki, but they can threaten him and get him to backtrack after he humiliates them.

Shortly after embracing Barack Obama's plan to get US combat troops out of Iraq, Maliki sent a flunky out to "clarify" things--no doubt after hearing and earful.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

The interview's publication came one day after the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a "general time horizon" in talks about reducing American combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country.

Am I the only person who believes we're going to have do this all over again? In ten or twelve years, are we going to have to send five combat divisions to Kuwait in order to take down the dastardly Maliki regime? Am I the only person who can see that Defense Secretary Bob Gates is getting everything he wants when he wants it every single day? The man is not losing--he's gaining. He wants US troops out of Iraq because his DoD can't sustain it. He wants Gitmo closed. He wants the State Department to start acting like a State Department. He wants the Congress to stay out of his way, and they do.

When was the last time Gates was blistered before Congress, by the way? Remember when Rumsfeld would sit there with a shit-eating grin and give them the "stuff happens" look?

UPDATE: I don't buy that this was a clarification. Why does the "clarification" and the retelling of what Maliki said always seem to be in favor of the Bush Administration when what he originally said was in opposition to it? That suggests pushback to me--as in, "here's what I meant to say" after someone has complained about my original statement. Especially if the "clarification" comes from CENTCOM.

--WS

Gates Makes His Case to Stay on at Defense

While we're not huge fans of some of his earlier work, we bear a grudging respect for what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been doing--and saying--as of late. It's too bad the Republicans went out and found a Secretary of Defense who, essentially, rips the guts out of every argument John McCain and his surrogates have been making this year.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism.

I can't wait for the outcry--Secretary Gates has basically undercut the rationale for staying in Iraq, effectively debunking the myth that if we don't fight them over there, we'll end up having to fight them over here. He has put the onus on Secretary Rice, who has never been up to the task. Her State Department is a shambles, with hundreds of key positions unfilled for months and years.

Every time McCain talks about attacking Iran, staying in Iraq, or using war as the instrument of our foreign policy--he should be hammered with this quote from Gates. McCain's manly boast about "I know how to win wars" should have been met with laughter and derision. Instead, the Man Crush continues.

We don't need another Richard Cohen type situation--Gates should not be kept by a possible Obama administration, if only because we need to develop Democrats who can effectively lead on defense issues.

[h/t to Juan Cole]

--WS

Michael Gerson's Mancrush on Robert Gates

Some people just can't hide their mancrushes, can they? We've seen the media's mancrush for Senator John McCain, and now we see evidence that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has a huge fan in Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.

Gerson tries to rewrite the history of the Walter Reed scandal into a mash note to Gates:

When he was told that some in the Army were dismissive of press reports on the mistreatment of patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, according to one witness, grew "very, very quiet." Within two weeks, the Walter Reed commander was out of a job.

This kind of decisive silence has been employed by Gates to good effect in scandals ranging from misdirected nuclear parts to the cremation of fallen American soldiers and pets at the same facility.

To those who know this Eagle Scout with 28 years of experience in government, his subdued efficiency is not surprising. To those of us who haven't had the pleasure, his transformational ambitions and strategic boldness are surprising indeed.

Decisive? It took him almost two weeks to get rid of an incompetent General? In the middle of a war, the Secretary of Defense has to wait that long to make a basic decision on who is in charge of one of the major facilities that treats and cares for wounded soldiers? We're not talking about who's in charge of the motor pool on Fort Sill. We're talking about a facility that is just across town from the Pentagon. And his solution was to simply move that same General to another command?

The commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center was fired yesterday after the Army said it had lost trust and confidence in his leadership in the wake of a scandal over outpatient treatment of wounded troops at the Northwest Washington hospital complex.

Army Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who assumed command of Walter Reed in August, will be temporarily replaced by Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley. But the appointment of Kiley, who had earlier been the facility's commander, surprised some Defense Department officials because soldiers, their families and veterans' advocates have complained that he had long been aware of problems at Walter Reed and did nothing to improve its outpatient care.

The action came 10 days after a Washington Post series exposed the squalid living conditions for some outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed and bureaucratic problems that prevented many from getting the care they need.

"The care and welfare of our wounded men and women in uniform demand the highest standard of excellence and commitment that we can muster as a government," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in a statement. "When this standard is not met, I will insist on swift and direct corrective action and, where appropriate, accountability up the chain of command."

A senior Defense Department official said Gates had demanded quick action to show that the Pentagon was serious about improvements at Walter Reed. But the official said that Gates was not involved in the appointment of Kiley.

That's not decisive. That's incomprehensible. Weightman went from commanding Walter Reed, a small Army post northwest of Washington DC to commanding Fort Detrick, a much larger Army post...northwest of Washington DC. And, when you think about it, how much sense did it make to take Walter Reed away from Weightman and give him command of Fort Detrick?

The mission of the U.S. Army Garrison and Fort Detrick is to Command, operate and administer the use of resources to provide installation support to on-post Department of Defense and non-Department of Defense tenant organizations; and to furnish automated data processing, financial management and logistical support as directed to selected Headquarters, Department of the Army staff and field operating agencies.

Major tenants located on Fort Detrick are the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 21st Signal Brigade, and the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency.

Fort Detrick serves four Cabinet-Level agencies, which include: The Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture and Department of Human Services. Fort Detrick's DoD support also includes elements of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beyond that, Fort Detrick supports several Unified and Major Army Commands: Unified U.S. Army Forces Command, U.S. Army Space Command, U.S. Army Information Systems Command, and U.S. Army Health Services Command.

Fort Detrick today is a U.S. Army Medical Command installation supporting a multi-agency community. Approximately 5,800 military, federal, and contractor personnel are assigned there. They conduct biomedical research and development, medical materiel management, and defense communications. Each of the military services is represented. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), is the installation commander.

[SNIP]

As the Department of Defense's lead laboratory for medical biological defense, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases conducts basic research leading to the development of vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and information to protect U.S. service members from biological warfare threats. The institute is a world-renowned reference laboratory for definitive identification of biological threat agents and diagnosis of the diseases they produce.

And, like any good corporate leader, the guy brought in to clean up the mess created by the demonstrably incompetent guy who was kicked upstairs to run a biological warfare program turns out to have been exactly the wrong guy.

Oh, and one more thing--that "decisive" decision by Gates? How'd that work out?

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley has lost his job as Army surgeon general, another casualty of the care scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren asked for Kiley's resignation, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates approved the action, a senior Pentagon official said.

In its official announcement, the Army said Kiley had requested retirement.

Kiley had been made temporary head of Walter Reed, the Army's top hospital, after Army Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman was ousted in the wake of a series in The Washington Post that found soldiers living in deplorable conditions.

However, he was quickly replaced by Gen. Eric Schoomaker amid criticism that Kiley, who was head of Walter Reed from 2000 to 2004, had been aware of the problems at the facility.

That's decisive leadership? Ten days after the problems were exposed, Gates fired Weightman and either did or didn't have anything to do with the decision that installed Kiley. Ten days after that, Gates fired Kiley. Weightman got a promotion, if you consider being sent from Walter Reed to Fort Detrick a promotion.

Does Michael Gerson have an editor? An editor who actually reads the Washington Post? Did it escape Gerson and his editor's attention that the Washington Post actually won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Walter Reed scandal?

Apparently, it did.

Gates Speaks About Taking Care of Troops, MRAPs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently gave a speech, emphasizing the need to take care of the troops over the need to prepare for future conflicts:

The Defense Department must focus on current war demands, even if it means straining the U.S. armed forces and devoting less time and money to future threats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Meeting the war-fighting needs of the troops now and taking care of them properly when they get home must be the priority, Gates said in a speech to journalists at a seminar here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.

But in a world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and militias waging irregular warfare.

If it means putting off more expensive weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army — that is a risk worth taking, he said.

Gates has announced his opposition to one reform that would ease the stress on recruiting and retain soldiers who wish to pursue an education:

Gates’ letter [to Congress] complicates Webb’s effort by opposing S 22 while favoring other bills that include a Pentagon and White House initiative allowing service members to transfer GI bill benefits to family members.

“It is essential to permit transferability of unused education benefits from service members to family,” Gates said in the letter to Sen. John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of a Republican alternative bill, which was to be formally introduced on Tuesday. Transferability, Gates said, “is the highest priority set by the service chiefs and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the strong interest from the field and the fleet,” Gates said.

Transferring benefits is good for the family but also good for the services by helping to keep people in the military while family members are using the benefits, Gates said.

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

Webb’s proposal would pay full tuition and fees for a public college plus provide a monthly living allowance equal to the basic allowance for housing of an E-5, which would exceed the level Gates says is acceptable.

The Enhancement of Recruiting, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act, cosponsored by McCain and other Republicans, provides $1,500 in basic monthly benefits plus $500 a year for books. It also includes transferability of benefits, with the right to transfer all benefits to family members after completing 12 years of service and to transfer half of earned benefits after six years.

The Republican bill might have attracted support from military and veterans groups if the more generous Webb proposal was not on the front burner. But the promises of full tuition plus stipend benefits, similar to what was provided after World War II, are very attractive to major veterans groups and to new organizations representing Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the McCain bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, “is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

Webb, in an interview, described such arguments as "absurd."

The Department of Defense, he said, "is doing a very good job managing its career force, given the strains that are on it. But it's doing a very poor job of taking care of the people who don't come in for a career."

Raising GI bill benefits nearer to those offered to veterans returning from World War II, Webb said, will give every volunteer, particularly those with no intention of making the military a career, "a proper reward for their service" and a great tool for transitioning to civilian life.

Defense officials have to understand, Webb said, that a volunteer military is "only a career system to a certain point." The current system isn't properly rewarding those who enter "because of love of country, or family tradition, or the fact that they just want to serve for a while," he said.

The services, he said, "have got this one demographic group they keep pounding on and throwing money at. Yet there's a whole different demographic group that would be attracted to coming in and serving a term."

GATES on MRAPs



During the same question and answer period, Gates also spoke about the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle:

Gates pointed to the mine-resistant vehicles as an example of spending money now on critical lifesaving equipment, rather than pouring all resources into war-fighting systems of the future.

Roadside bombs and suicide attacks "have become the weapons of choice for America's most dangerous and likely adversaries — and the need to have a vehicle of this kind won't go away," he said.

Gates also issued a warning to the military services, which have long set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to develop and get onto the battlefield.

The Army has its $200 billion Future Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.

However, the MRAP vehicle has been cited as having already been compromised by an insurgent-deployed weapon that finds a vulnerability in the design:

The deaths of two U.S. soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

The soldiers were riding in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicle, known as an MRAP, when an explosion sent a blast of super-heated metal through the MRAP's armor and into the vehicle, killing them both.

Their deaths brought to eight the number of American troops killed while riding in an MRAP, which was developed and deployed to Iraq last year after years of acrimony over light armor on the Army's workhorse vehicle, the Humvee.

The military has praised the vehicles for saving hundreds of lives, saying they could withstand the IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which have been the biggest killers of Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon has set aside $5.4 billion to acquire 4,000 MRAPs at more than $1 million each, making the MRAP the Defense Department's third largest acquisition program, behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter.

The military has resisted efforts to find out what might be wrong with the MRAP:

The Marine Corps has ordered a civilian scientist to stop work on a report critical of its efforts to obtain new armored vehicles, saying he exceeded his authority, a Marine official said Tuesday.

Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser, alleged in a Jan. 22 report that "gross mismanagement" of the program to quickly field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles had resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of Marines in Iraq. Gayl had planned to continue his investigation.

Handling the Cremation of Fallen Soldiers

A facility in Delaware that cremates both human and animal remains in different incinerators at the same site was cited as a reason for reviewing how the remains of fallen soldiers are handled.

The Pentagon is recommending changes in the handling of troops' remains, after it was revealed that a crematorium contracted by the military handles both human and animal cremations.

A military official said there have been no instances or charges that human and pet remains were mixed. But officials are now recommending that troops' remains be incinerated at a facility that is dedicated entirely to humans, in order to avoid any appearance of a problem. Or, officials said, families can opt to have a relative's remains sent to a local funeral home for cremation, which would be paid for by the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates believed the earlier situation was "insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

"Our heroes deserve to be better treated than that," Morrell said, adding that a sign at one of the crematoriums noted that it also does pet cremations. He said Gates offered an apology to military families for the insensitivity.

The Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary, where all troops' remains arrive from the battlefield, does not have its own crematorium, so it contracts with two funeral homes for the cremations: Torbert Funeral Chapel and Pippens Funeral Home.

The policy of cremation for household pets has grown in popularity in recent years. There are facilities, such as this one, that handle only pet cremation. The notion of processing both human remains and animal remains in different retorts, or incinerators at the same site is not without precedent:

Bayview Crematory, which had been considering acquiring two retorts, or new cremation units—one for human remains and coincidentally, one for animal remains—supported Robinson’s idea, and a new business —A Paw Print In Heaven, LLC—was born. Robinson printed up business cards and started an advertising campaign. And these days, she’s keeping busy.

“When I get a call, I talk to the person and I find out what’s going on—what kind of pet it was, what happened, how they are doing, where they are.” Robinson makes it clear to pet owners that she is sympathetic to their loss because “you have to understand that the pet is a family member. Sometimes what they need is someone to listen to them cry.”

[snip]

The animal is cremated almost immediately upon arrival, and the ashes put into a wooden urn, which is returned to the owner, along with the I.D. tag that matches the one the owner is still holding. The knowledge that the ashes in the urn are indeed those of the deceased pet has become a prime concern to many owners. Many have heard horror stories, such as the 2004 legal case brought by nearly 1,700 families against a Georgia crematory that failed to cremate bodies, and returned cement dust rather than ashes to family members after charging them fees for crematory services.
“That sort of thing is just horrible,” said Robinson, “and I do think people are distrustful. They’ve had reason to be.”

However, the notion of handling the bodies of soldiers killed in the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan in such a facility has forced the military to look into the manner in which it conducts this type of operation.

Pippens' crematorium is located at the funeral home and is used only for human remains, while Torbert's has incinerators for both human and animal remains.

While most facilities don't advertise the fact that they handle both human and animal remains, there is a sign near the Torbert crematory advertising the "Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service."

Officials said there are three incinerators at the Torbert facility, and two are used for humans, while one is used for pets. The human and pet facilities are separated by about 20 feet.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, Air Force staff director, told Pentagon reporters that it is not uncommon for crematoriums to provide both services.

It is not known whether the military would have conducted a review of the policy if one military officer had not complained to Congress about the facility in Delaware that handles both human and pet cremations:

Klotz said the issue came to light Friday when an officer who works in the Pentagon went to Dover to pay respects to a fallen comrade who was being cremated. The soldier noticed the pet cremations sign, and was concerned about the fact that the facility handled both human and animal remains.

The officer alerted senior officials at the Pentagon, who notified Capitol Hill and quickly pulled together the policy changes.

Bill Torbert, president of Torbert Funeral Chapel, said a representative from Dover Air Force Base visited a crematory run by his company earlier this week, but was satisfied there was nothing amiss.

Torbert said the human and pet crematories are in adjoining buildings on the same property but have separate entrances. A sign advertising pet cremation services is in front of the Friends Forever office, but there are no signs on the building housing the human crematory facilities, which Torbert said are not used for cremation of pets.

“We do a lot of work with the military,” he said. “We service them very well.”

Mission NOT Accomplished

Remember how we left Afghanistan on the back burner to go after Iraq? Well, it looks like someone is either trying to kill this story by leaking it or float it as a trial balloon...

Pentagon officials are quietly considering a significant change in the war command in Afghanistan to extend U.S. control of forces into the country's volatile south.

Such a move, partly linked to an expectation of a fresh infusion of U.S. troops in the south next year, would in effect mark a partial "re-Americanization" of the combat mission in Afghanistan.

Taliban resistance has stiffened in the south since NATO took command there in mid-2006, and some in the Bush administration believe the fight against the Taliban could be strengthened if the U.S., whose span of control is now limited to eastern Afghanistan, were also in charge in part or all of the south.

Blaming our NATO allies for the resurgence of the Taliban isn't going to fully satisfy people who have been paying attention. Frankly, there is huge disagreement between NATO and the US over the use of airstrikes. The people who know Counterinsurgency within NATO understand that killing dozens of civilians with a JDAM makes their work harder, not easier. This rift has been around for a while, going back to this Reuters article from January, 2008:

Behind stepped-up commitments from the United States and Britain, stark differences are emerging between the two biggest powers operating in Afghanistan about how best to tackle the Taliban and al-Qaeda threat.

On the face of it, there's joint action: the United States is sending 3,200 more troops [the Marines who just arrived] and a British politician is to be named as the new, high-profile envoy to Afghanistan.

But analysts say the squabble is symptomatic of uncertainty over how to deal with Afghanistan, which is emerging as a more complex and nuanced battleground than Iraq, and a desire to show who is in the lead under the NATO umbrella.

The dispute has focused on Britain's proposal to use untrained neighbourhood defence teams -- known as 'arbakai' -- to help improve security in the volatile south were it operates.

In unusually frank and public criticism, U.S. officials and military commanders have said the idea will not work, could fuel fighting and that Britain doesn't understand counter-insurgency.

The dispute began after Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a speech to parliament last month saying he wanted to see a shift in strategy towards "hard-headed realism" that worked "with the grain of Afghan tradition".

"One way forward is to increase our support for community defence initiatives, where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families modelled on traditional Afghan arbakai," he said.

Immediately afterwards, Washington began speaking against the plan, even though similar tactics have been employed by U.S. forces to quell the Sunni-led insurgency in western Iraq.

General Dan McNeill, the commander of NATO's International Security and Assistance Force, told the Financial Times flatly that the idea would not work and could fuel insurgency.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the criticism a step further on Wednesday, telling the Los Angeles Times that Britain and other forces operating in southern Afghanistan didn't seem to know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency.

"Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counter-insurgency," Gates said.

What the hell is the difference between the "neighborhood defense teams" and "the Sunni Awakening councils?" It seems to me that we're being a little disingenuous--the British are simply using a very basic approach of getting the local population invested in their own security and defense, one that we've used in Iraq. And it takes a lot of balls to suggest that the British, who make up a large chunk of the NATO force in Afghanistan, don't know COIN. They're joined by elite troops from other European powers who have probably had as much, if not more training and instruction in these areas. This goes back to sneering at the Canadians--big mistake. They have a smaller but professionalized military that emphasizes competence and skill over 19th century drill tactics and overwhelming firepower.

The resurgence of the Taliban owes itself to the safe haven provided by Pakistan. Without that safe haven, it is highly unlikely that the Taliban could have come back so strong.

Change in the command structure in Afghanistan is being driven by political realities and won't happen soon:

The defense officials doubted a decision would be made before fall and possibly not until a new administration takes office in 2009. Two officials said there appears to be no high-level advocate for making such a change in the near term, although there is growing concern that while higher U.S. troop levels in Iraq have helped reduce violence there, the trends in Afghanistan are less positive.

There are now about 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan — the most at any time during the war, which began in October 2001. They include 3,400 Marines who arrived this month as reinforcements for combat missions in the south and to help train Afghan security forces. Those Marines are scheduled to leave in October, but if replacements are not offered by NATO allies soon the Pentagon likely will either extend the Marines' deployment or tap another unit to fill the void.

With who? Who do they think they're going to send? We're down to a few National Guard brigades that are stressed as it is.

I Started Something I Couldn't Finish

All of the weapons, all of the training, all of the money--and THIS is what we get for it?

Col. Abbas al-Tamimi, media officer for the 14th Iraqi Army Division operating in the city, said he expected the fighting to escalate. “The gunmen have heavier and more sophisticated weapons than we have,” he said.

You have GOT to be kidding me. The Iraqi Army--with al-Maliki calling the shots and in the ceremonial lead of it--starts a confrontation in Basra with the Mahdi Army and they're outgunned?

Not only does Robert Gates need to stand down and account for every piece of American nuclear material and equipment, he needs to order the US military in Iraq to do the same--and account for every weapon we've given the Iraqi Army.

The NY Times says:

BAGHDAD — An assault by thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers to regain control of the southern port city of Basra stalled Wednesday as Shiite militiamen in the Mahdi Army fought daylong hit-and-run battles and refused to withdraw from the neighborhoods that form their base of power there.

American officials have presented the Iraqi Army’s attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own.

During a briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday, a British military official said that of the nearly 30,000 Iraqi security forces involved in the assault, almost 16,000 were Basra police forces, which have long been suspected of being infiltrated by the same militias the assault was intended to root out.

The operation is a significant political test for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who traveled to Basra to oversee the beginning of the assault. It is also a gamble for both the Iraqi and American governments. The Americans distrust the renegade cleric Moktada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, who consider the Americans occupiers.

The dominant Shiite groups in Mr. Maliki’s government are political and military rivals of Mr. Sadr, and Mr. Maliki is freer now to move against him because Mr. Sadr’s party is no longer a crucial part of his coalition.

But if the Mahdi Army breaks completely with the cease-fire that has helped to tamp down attacks in Iraq during the past year, there is a risk of replaying 2004, when the militia fought intense battles with American forces that destabilized the entire country and ushered in years of escalating violence. Renewed attacks, in turn, would make it more difficult to begin sending home large numbers of American troops.

Mr. Maliki issued an ultimatum on Wednesday for Shiite militias in Basra to put down their weapons within 72 hours. Yet battles continued, killing at least 40 people and wounding 200 others, hospital officials said.

Though American and Iraqi officials have insisted that the operation was not singling out a particular group, fighting appeared to focus on Mahdi-controlled neighborhoods. In fact, some witnesses said, neighborhoods controlled by rival political groups seemed to be giving government forces safe passage, as if they were helping them to strike at the Mahdi Army.

Even so, the Mahdi fighters seemed to hold their ground. Witnesses said that from the worn, closely packed brick buildings of one Mahdi stronghold, the Hayaniya neighborhood, Mahdi fighters fired mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons and sniper rifles at seemingly helpless Iraqi Army units pinned on a main road outside, their armored vehicles unable to enter the narrow streets.

The assault has also sparked continuing violence by outraged Mahdi commanders in other major cities, including Baghdad, where the sprawling urban slum called Sadr City forms the militia’s power center in Iraq.

Most casualties in Basra were civilians caught in the cross-fire, hospital officials said. The heaviest fighting outside Basra appeared to be taking place in Kut, where officials said 10 people had been killed and 31 wounded, mostly by mortar shells.

There were also deadly clashes in Diwaniya, Hilla and Amara, and the booms of rocket fire rattled Baghdad all day. The American military said in a statement that 16 rockets had been fired into the fortified Green Zone alone, wounding one American soldier, two American civilians and an Iraqi Army soldier.

Unbelievable. I just don't have words for this anymore. The unravelling of Iraq has been so quick and so definitive so far, I just hope and pray they can stop this before it gets worse.

The problem is this--there are no US troops to send. The well has run dry. And that is a screaming indictment of the Bush Administration and the abject failure they have become.

Exactly What We Don't Need (One More edition)

I guess you just need to expect incompetence from these people...

MSNBC BREAKING NEWS
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it mistakenly shipped non-nuclear ballistic missile components to Taiwan from a U.S. Air Force base in Wyoming.
It said the items have been returned to the United States.
At a news conference, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said that the misshipped items were four nose cone assemblies for ballistic missiles. He also said it was sent instead of helicopter batteries that had been ordered by Taiwan, he said.
Wynne said the matter is under investigation.
Ryan Henry, the No. 2 policy official in the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said President Bush was notified of the mistake and the actions to recover the items. Henry called the mistake "disconcerting" and intolerable.

So, now the question is this: given that the Air Force has now shipped nuclear weapons across the country without properly accounting for them, and given this latest slip-up, who's being fired?

Shouldn't Gates just be wholesale cashiered on this one, to reassure the Chinese that we're serious about looking for accountability on this matter? I'm thinking that if we fired Gates, Wynne and a few others, that might do the trick.

Don't hold your breath.

Update I - Blue Girl - 10:20 central

It is time for the House and Senate Armed Services committees to call for and demand a global stand-down of the Air Force. The errors that are happening are too frequent and too egregious and the incompetence of the godboys at the top represents a clear and immediate threat to the national security. When the next president takes over, the Air Force needs a top to bottom evaluation, and a whole bunch of retirements need to be forced, and reviewed. Some of the incompetents with eagles and stars on their collars need to be retired as O-3's by congress. We take this all very personally in this household. We gave the Air Force the best years of our lives. We want to be proud of that again.

UPDATE II - PALE RIDER

Oh, NOW YOU TELL US!!!

At a Pentagon news conference, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the misshipped items were four electrical fuses for nose cone assemblies for ICBMs. He also said they were delivered to Taiwan in 2006 and had been sent instead of helicopter batteries that had been ordered by Taiwan.

The fuses were manufactured for use on a Minuteman strategic nuclear missile but contain no nuclear materials.

"This could not be construed as being nuclear material. It is a component for the fuse in the nosecone for a nuclear system," Wynne said. "We are very concerned about it."

Wynne said the matter is under investigation. He said the Taiwanese authorities notified U.S. officials of the mistake. He said the fuses had been in a shipping container sent from one U.S. Air Force base to another in 2005 and then delivered to Taiwan in 2006.

Well, I guess that's okay then! It happened several years ago! No big deal! Nothing like disclosing these kinds of things in a timely fashion, huh?

UPDATE III - Blue Girl - 11:00 AM

Without saying anything that I shouldn't - my husband spent his career working on electronics systems of ICBMs, so please believe me when I tell you this...it isn't about the nuclear material, and stressing that fissibles were not compromised, move along, nothing to see here...is a headfake.

These fuses are not what civilians think of when they hear the word "fuse." They are top-secret components in the electrical systems of ICBMs. The warhead is the easy part of a missile system. The hard part is the delivery vehicle - you don't deliver a nuclear payload by oxcart, you know. Compromising the electronics is possibly providing the final piece of information to a rogue state like North Korea that is openly developing missile technology to allow them to finally have a weapon that will reach the west coast. This is a big god-damned deal, and careers need to end over it.

UPDATE IV - Blue Girl - 11:30 AM

I just got off the phone. I called the Armed Services committee of both chambers (House: 202-225-4151. Senate 202-224-3871.) I was very respectful, but I also got my point across, that I am not a hysterical housewife obsessing over cable news - or at least not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, hysterical housewife, anyway. That was dispelled when I gave them my husbands name, rank, dates of service, and ELAB AFSC.

Both of the staffers I spoke with were very polite and extremely concerned about this incident. They understood that it isn't about the fissibles, it's about the delivery vehicle. When I said the Air Force needed to stand down globally, the SASC staffer said "I can assure you something will come of this."

I am taking him at his word, as Senator Levin's proxy, but I will be watching just the same.

Alienating our Allies

It isn't like we have a whole lot of them left, so Bob Gates slur against our NATO allies in Afghanistan is not only troubling, it is, frankly, stupid. Which also troubles me - Gates is not a stupid fellow. I have never been a fan, but at least I grudgingly respected his competence and talent - but then he said this:

“I’m worried we’re deploying [military advisers] that are not properly trained, and I’m worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counter-insurgency operations.”

Now I can make with the scorn and ridicule without a second thought.

In case you missed it, Gates blasted the Brits and other NATO member states fighting in Afghanistan by saying in an interview that the allies lack of experience in counter-insurgency warfare was contributing to the escalating violence and instability in the south of that beleaguered nation, and contributing to the rise of the Taliban. (Perhaps he has forgotten that the Brits are the only country to actually win a counterinsurgency? Malaysia in the 50's, anyone?)

His remarks drew sharp criticism and instant reactions from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, the three countries that have born the brunt in the south. The Dutch were particularly incensed.

The Dutch were so angry at what appeared to be direct criticism that they summoned the US Ambassador in The Hague to explain Mr Gates’s comments. British and Dutch officials refused to believe that the criticism was directed at them, but Eric Adelman, the US Assistant Secretary of Defence, nonetheless had to ring around Nato capitals to give reassurance that Mr Gates was not attacking any individual member.

[snip]

As officials tried to smooth over the apparent rift, his comments drew a fierce response. Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and a former British Army officer, said they were “bloody outrageous”. He said: “I would beg the Americans to understand that we are their closest allies, and our men are bleeding and dying in large numbers.”

Britain has 7,800 troops in southern Afghanistan, where 81 have been killed. The Dutch and the Canadians have also lost a substantial number of soldiers in counter-insurgency operations against the Taleban.

So what's the deal here? Remember that Gates, at his very core, is an ideologue. Is he making such unhinged and offensive comments now because he knows that a year from now there will be a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both houses? Is he undermining relations now in advance of that eventuality because he wants to make it as difficult as it can possibly be for the next president?

Petulant fuck.

The mercenaries now have to answer to the military

The Department of Defense and the State Department finalized an agreement on Wednesday that gives the military authority over all of the State Department security contractors mercenaries that operate in Iraq.

This turn of events was precipitated by a bloody, murderous rampage in Nisour Square in Baghdad on September 16 that left 17 civilians dead and several more wounded. Blackwater insisted their thugs personnel were under attack, but the forensics put the lie to those claims.

U.S. military commanders have complained long and loud, since the earliest days of the invasion, about the cowboys in the Ray-Bans who shoot first and don't even stick around to ask any questions later. The cowboys move about the battle space, and don't bother to tell the military that they are on the move. They undermine the mission (whatever it is this week) and they aggravate the situation and aggrieve the locals.

Let's make sure to give credit where credit is due: Bob Gates started moving pieces around the board immediately after the unprovoked attack, attempting to get the "contractors" under control. I've said this before and I'll probably say it again about Gates: I don't like the man, but I respect the talent. Sometimes, I can almost admire the old prick. Almost...

Making the Mercenaries Accountable

It is starting to look like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is leaning heavily toward taking strident steps toward bringing all armed “security personnel” (read: mercenaries) under single authority, most likely the U.S. military, no matter what branch of government they are contracting with.

Currently, there are approximately 10,000 armed mercenaries running around Iraq, under contract to various branches of the United States government and NGOs. I know it sounds bizarre, but there is no central oversight authority to which they must answer.

Pragmatically, it just makes sense to bring all armed civilians who are under contract to American government agencies and NGOs, as well as the American military under one authority. It would mean, effectively, that those armed civilians would no longer have multiple bosses at multiple levels and a disparate set of rules. Pentagon officials say it would allow for better coordination and communications between the American military and the private security personnel.

When contractors get in trouble, they call on the US military to bail them out. Fully 30% of the incidents in which the military was called on to save mercenary bacon involved movements and convoys that the military was not even aware had mobilized.

American commanders often perceive the private security personnel in an adversarial light. Civilian casualties, victims of mercenary gunfire, infuriate the Iraqi government and damage the American perception and image among the locals. This frustrates military officers who say the heavy-handed, shoot-first-and-don’t-even-bother-to-ask-questions-later tactics by mercenaries undermine the broader mission.

As details of the Blackwater shootings have emerged in recent weeks, Mr. Gates has signaled his unease with the existing command and legal authorities governing security contractors.

“Do we have the mechanisms and the means for our commanders to exercise a kind of strategic oversight and assure accountability in terms of the behavior and the conduct of these security contractors?” Mr. Gates asked at the Pentagon on Sept. 27.

“It’s very important that we do everything in our power to make sure that people who are under contract to us are not only abiding by our rules, but are conducting themselves in a way that makes them an asset in this war in Iraq and not a liability,” he added.

Gates is said to feel very strongly about the need to rein in the armed civilians that run around the country and frequently run amok and murder civilians, to the point that he has expressed a willingness to go directly to the president if necessary. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon’s press secretary, said Mr. Gates “has made clear that he supports his commanders’ assertions that, at the very least, they need greater visibility on the work and movements of armed security contractors in Iraq.”

Gates has been told by senior military commanders in Iraq that there must be a single chain of command, providing oversight for all contract personnel. The commanders argue that the military is the best positioned entity to provide that oversight authority.

No formal proposals have been made, but when they are, they are expected to meet resistance from the State Department, which, while acknowledging that there is a problem, wants to retain authority over their own contract employees.

Gates and Rice enjoy a better relationship than Rumsfeld and Rice did, and Gates is holding off on making sweeping pronouncements and proclamations until he has a chance to sit down face-to-face and discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.

But one thing is certain...the issue of contractors and accountability is not going to go away, and there will be oversight.

And it's about damned time, too.

I think Dick Cheney must be referring to some other “Surge™”

Last week on CNN, Dick Cheney was adamant that “The Surge ™” was working – if you will.

He is optimistic that the report to Congress by Petraeus and Crocker next month will be positive. (We’re winning!!!) "The reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results," insisted Cheney, employing the same shift-the-blame meme that has been peddled furiously of late. Of course this is not Petraeus’s plan. The “Surge™” was actually dreamed up by some fatassed armchair generals at the AEI, and everyone who has been paying attention knows it. (Emphasis on paying attention…given the state of awareness we currently realize, the mendacious pricks will likely get away with everything to date, and more into the future.)

It is going so swimmingly that the very next day, the appeal for help attempting to unscrew the pooch was made to the United Nations.

Two days after Mr. Cheney and his Midas delusions were singing paeans to Iraq, and freedom, and independence delivered at the barrel of a gun; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates continued dialing back expectations and admitting that the political process that the Surge™ was supposed to enable had not moved forward, and now the parliament is off on holiday until September.

Not only had stalemate and squabbling set in before the recess, but the Sunni al-Tawafuq bloc withdrew from the government of Nouri Kemal al-Maliki. They vacated five of the six ministry posts held by them in Maliki’s cabinet.

Secretary Gates admitted the lack of political progress. "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation," Mr Gates said. (Speak for yourself, Bob. This is exactly what *We* said was going to happen.)

Adding insult to injury, the electric grid is so decrepit that it can’t keep the water pumping, and it is 120º in Iraq this time of year. Some areas have been without water for a week.

Much hay has been made of the reduced American body count for the bloodiest July yet – violence adhered to the established pattern. It abated in July, but it has already ticked back upward the first week of August.

And if all that wasn’t enough…approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces - 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. That is a lot of firepower unaccounted for. The BBC reports on the World Service that a new GAO report reveals the weapons are certainly being used against coalition and Iraqi forces. And guess who was in charge when those weapons went missing?

Yep.

Dave Petraeus.

In October of last year, it was revealed in a GAO report that 1 in 25, or 14,000 weapons had gone missing, and there was great hue and cry about it.

I wonder what lesson they took from last falls weapons scandal? If I were a betting woman, I would wager that the lesson they seized on has nothing to do with securing the weapons caches. Instead, I would wager that the lesson they learned was to keep the lost weapons out of the media, which is preternaturally willing to comply with this craven administration.

Pace is Out at Joint Chiefs

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced today that he would not seek to have General Peter Pace to remain on as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff after his current term expires in September.

"I concluded that because Gen. Pace has served as chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the last six years, the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future," Gates said. "There was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious," he said. "A divisive ordeal at this point is not in the interest of the country."

I’m sure that he would have a hard time being reconfirmed. First he stuck his foot in his mouth about gays in the military, then he wrote that love-letter for Libby.

Goodbye, and might I add, good riddance. Would that Congress had the power to reduce your damned rank and retire you a Lt. Colonel.

A “War Czar” has been chosen

The White House today announced the appointment of Lt. General Douglas Lute to the position of Director of Operations for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lt. General Lute was a featured speaker at a breakfast hosted by the Association of the United States Army Institute of Land Warfare breakfast earlier in the week. Some of the things he said make way too much sense for a Bush appointment.

You be the judge. (From the AUSA Website)

AUSA Hosts Several key Committee Staffers

AUSA hosted several key congressional staff members at the Institute of Land Warfare breakfast this week. Addressing the group was LTG Douglas Lute, the director for operations, J-3, for the Joint Staff.

LTG Lute described the U.S. military and the global war on terror by saying, “We have a hammer but the problem is not a series of nails.” He also said that al Qaeda fights by using loosely connected cells around the world and educating its followers on the internet to achieve its goal of reestablishing the Caliphate—a geographic area under Muslim rule and governed by Islamic law.
The enemy has found a safe haven on the internet, which, according to Lute, they use “better than we do.” Instructions can be found on the internet o n how to build bomb vests and how to cross Syria into Iraq. All these things can be found “on the internet today. It is the greatest safe haven they use against us.”

Some of the lessons learned, Lute explained are that joint warfighting is one of the keys to winning. Fighting with allies and local people and understanding their culture and language are powerful weapons. In addition, firepower and maneuver are not as important as timing and precision. “We have the world’s best Army,” Lute explained, “but we don’t have ‘find and fix.’” The enemy, he said, has excellent intelligence gathering while the United States relies on intelligence almost solely from prisoners.

The war on terror, Lute warned, could last fifteen to sixteen years. Nor would it be a decisive victory. “We’re not going to see the win in the newspapers, there will be no V-J (Japan) Day.” Instead, he explain ed, the ideology we fight can be suppressed but not eradicated. Also, the military alone cannot deliver victory and, in the end, countries around the world will not offer us gratitude, but respect.

I am not of the opinion that adding another level to the metric will change anything or salvage the unsalvageable, but I am at least not mortified by their choice, which is frankly far and away better than I expected. He sure is saying the right things.

For the record, I will never be a fan of Bob Gates, but I think I see his fingerprints on this choice, and if so, he’s making it hard to maintain the level of loathing for him that I have had for at least 20 freakin’ years.

Also, it does not escape my notice that this transpired while Dick "use the Military to open a soda" Cheney was out of the country.

[Cross-posted from the blog you should be reading, Watching Those We Chose]

So much for 12-months “Dwell Time”

Stars & Stripes reported Thursday that the Army is rotating a combat company back to Iraq a mere nine months after they left. Members of the 1^st Armored Division, 1^st Battalion, 6^th Infantry, Company A were informed on Tuesday that they will return to Iraq in November, for a 15 month deployment. They just finished a 13-month deployment to Iraq in February.

On April 11, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that tours would be extended to 15 months for all active duty Army personnel currently deployed or with orders to the theatre of operations. At the time the extended tours were announced, the SecDef also stressed that soldiers would be guaranteed a full year at home.

When asked about the situation late Wednesday, Mr. Gates said he could not explain why the Army was sending the company back to battle a mere nine months after it’s last deployment finished. “I’ll be very interested to find out more about that. We just need to find out about that, because I made it clear that people would have 12 months at home.” (emphasis added)

Apparently the SecDef needs to have a chat with Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman about just what, exactly the Secretary meant when he said those words, because he got something entirely different out of the SecDef’s proclamation..

“[T]here are some people, just by the nature of transferring units and things like that may not end up with the full 12 months.”

“The United States military is not a static organization,” Whitman said.

The Army, Whitman said, is “managing intensely” “individuals in units, and assignment policies, and rotations and things like that.”

“But it’s not going to be 100 percent, or you would have to basically, you know, lock down the Army, and nobody would transfer from one combat unit to another combat unit,” Whitman said.

Rather than a guarantee, Whitman said, the 12-month dwell time between deployments “is a goal, to have units and individuals to have an appropriate amount of time for recovery and for stability purposes at home station and to be able to be with their families.”

So…a promise made to the services by the Secretary of Defense is a goal, eh?

The fact remains, we have asked too much of our services, especially of the Army. It is simply unsustainable. We have a reckoning in store, and it will not be pleasant to deal with. It would behoove us to start that process now.

Another document dump...

under cover of night.

The scandals are popping like Orville Reddenbacher's finest gourmet popping corn.

Gonzo can't weather this storm. An innocent woman went to jail over politics, for cryin' out loud!

But I naturally tend toward the Pentagon, where Gates is playing Chess with checkers men. He left his academic position and took the DoD job in good faith. And how have these loyalty-is-a-one-way-street, Mayberry Machiavelli's repaid him? Four months on the job, the president is looking for a "War Czar" and screwing his SoD in public announcements about tour extensions.

Now I am no fan of Bob Gates. I absolutely detest him. Not because he is a Republican (he has never been a registered Republican, he has always been an Independent but because I know his past work. He is an ideologue of the first order and the original facts fixer. But I'm not stupid. I know skill when I see it. Where Rumsfeld was a bureaucratic knife-fighter, Gates is the guy who would poison the coffee pot, pour himself a cup of tea and go to his office and quietly work through the morning and then step over the bodies on the way to lunch.

I don't like him, but I don't underestimate him.

But something tells me aWol does. And that way, my friends, might lie his doom...and a bit of redemption for Bob Gates.

Standardized Stop-Loss

On January 29^th, Defense Secretary Robert Gates enjoyed a lot of favorable press when he announced that the military would no longer rely on stop-loss policies and extended deployments to keep troop numbers up. He instructed all of the heads of the branches of service to submit plans to him by 28 February detailing how they would cope with this new reality of having to honor that sacred date circled on kitchen calendars throughout the land.

Well, it was nice while it lasted. Secretary Gates held another press conference today. Now all tours are being extended. All - as in every last one - all. Every U.S. Army soldier who deploys to a combat zone in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or who is currently deployed, is there for 15 months. (It used to be 12.)

Now see, it isn’t that people who think like I do are defeatists. In fact, I'm getting real damned sick of having that charge leveled and my patriotism questioned. I have had no part in abrogating the Constitution, destroying the United States fighting forces or trashing civil liberties, so I'm not the one whose patriotism should be questioned.

No, me and the people like me are much worse than defeatists…We are realists. Realists are a hell of a lot harder to dismiss than defeatists. I’m not wringing my hands over here – I’m pointing to GAO reports, and the white papers from think-tanks, and to the reports from war-game exercises like Desert Crossings.

There is a reckoning on its way. I take no pleasure in that fact, but that I take no pleasure in it does not palliate reality. The load we are asking our military to bear is unsustainable. General Powell is right – the Army is damned near broken. If reality is not addressed immediately, the damage is going to be vast and devastating.

It took 30 years for men like my husband to rebuild the military in the wake of Vietnam. It took a long time to build a professional force and get rid of the unfit to serve. It wasn’t that hard to get in – but it wasn’t that easy to stay in, either. Up-or-Out. Now standards are being relaxed, to the point where fully 17% of all recruits are admitted on waivers.

Couple all of these hinky troops with a lack of leadership that is resulting from a depleted officer corps – the Army is missing 3500 officers throughout the ranks, and the Army Reserves are missing over 11,000 Lieutenants and Captains – and you have a force that is compromised to it’s very core.

If U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq today, we are looking at a 20-year rebuilding cycle, at the very least. If we stay another year, it might take 50 years to repair and restore. It is that serious, people. (Unfortunately, only about 2% of Americans actually *get* that.)

The Iraq war was half-assed from the outset. Because it was done on the cheap with less than half the troops that would have been needed, now it isn’t salvageable. Period.

And don’t blame me, just because I'm smart enough to read the writing on the wall. I have been right about absolutely everything from the get-go, and dismissed for having the audacity to be right. (How dare I?!?!?) I realize that is absolutely infuriating if you happen to disagree with me, but c’est la vie! Take it up with the geniuses who have failed miserably at absolutely every damned thing for the last six years. If you think I am going to apologize for being right, you're freakin' nuts.

Accept reality: Nobody is going to "follow us home." That is a lie. It is also a lie when the president says that the congress is not funding the troops – they certainly are – it is the president who stubbornly insists that he will not sign the bill because it has something in there about demanding accountability - something of which he has no concept.

To which I say "Tough shit, aWol. Deal."

With Kiley gone, the fate of a task force is in limbo

Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Monday, stating their concerns that the Defense Department’s Mental Health Task Force report due in June will be delayed in the wake of the resignation of Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley; a valid concern as Kiley was the co-chair of the task force. He was forced into retirement earlier in the month because he was the General Officer who let Walter Reed happen on his watch.

The task force in question was created from legislation written by Senator Boxer, and is supposed to deliver a report to Secretary Gates in May. It was announced today that Surgeon General of the Navy, Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, has been nominated to replace Kiley on the investigative body.

The panel was created to assess strategies for assuring the delivery of mental health services to all veterans who need them, especially the veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many veterans have lost their driving privileges because of traumatic brain injuries the have resulted in seizure disorders (NPR did a piece last week on just such a case). Or they have physical limitations that they have not yet overcome to the point they can resume driving. Some are just so wracked with PTSD that they don’t or won’t drive.

Too many have lost their vehicles to repossession while they wait for benefits to start.

“We are concerned that his departure could delay the completion of the task force report.” They wrote. “Service members cannot be forced to wait for care because of a shortage of mental health providers. Tragedies have occurred because service members did not receive the care they needed.”

The Senators raised explicit concerns about veterans in rural areas where services are not readily available and VA centers might be hours away. For whatever reason, if a Veteran can’t get to the services, the services need to get to him. Or her. Period. There is simply no discussion to engage in on that topic.

They also wrote about the need for pre and post deployment mental health screenings, comprehensive education about mental health issues such as depression and PTSD, and the need to take steps to eliminate the stigma associated with seeking mental health services that some members of the military have expressed. (If I made the rules, discrimination against and the hazing of those returning from combat with readjustment issues would be a career ender and a pension forfeiture.)

The task force should not let the sacking of Kiley sideline them. They should continue working, and the confirmation process for Admiral Arthur should move quickly and, if he is suitable, confirm him promptly.

The issues faced by our veterans – who have really gotten a lousy shake all the way around – will continue to need services they are not getting. God knows that the US government is not going to do anything on spec and suddenly start taking care of the Veterans and war wounded they have created.

No, that requires an official report from a task force; signed by all members, notarized and in triplicate.

[cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]