iraq

W: "All I can report is it is a size ten."

Update: HippieChick has more on this in her diary. I also wanted to point out that when Bush was making similar noises in 2004, Rock the Vote ran a great campaign focusing on the draft. It infuriated Ed Gillespie and the RNC. It would be great to see something like that again.
------------------------

I'm not looking to fearmonger or anything, but the dude said it himself:

Think Progress has the scoop.

Bumped. --Mike

Crossposted at Politics for the Common Good.

Over the past few days, we've seen something that has become increasingly rare in American politics: a Republican moving toward the Democrat in a campaign. It's quite refreshing.

Senator McCain has been quite the proponent of the "surge" in Iraq, an increase of 21,500 troops in Iraq announced by President Bush on January 10, 2007. With the McCain doctrine implemented, the Senator from Arizona has repeatedly been against any "timetable" in bringing troops home.

The senator has held this stance for a long time. One example is from February 2007 when he was campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

"Obviously, I have to talk to you about the war in Iraq," he says somberly as the crowd quiets. "All of us — all of us — are frustrated. All of us are angry because of the mishandling of the war. All of us are saddened by the loss of our most precious asset, and that's American blood."

Even so, the costs of retreat would be higher, fueling chaos in Iraq and drawing terrorists to U.S. shores, he says. "I want us to have patience. I want us to succeed."

Another happened more recently, a little over a week ago, when he criticized Sen. Obama's plan to withdraw troops in sixteen months, claiming that it posed a threat to the progress made in Iraq.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Thursday ridiculed Democrat Barack Obama's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months as a political tactic aimed at getting votes.

McCain, an Arizona senator, attacked Obama as the Democrat prepares to go on a foreign trip to the Middle East and Europe that the McCain camp called a rolling overseas campaign event.

Obama in a speech this week stuck by his pledge to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 16 months, a policy McCain said would sacrifice the security gains that have recently brought a measure of stability to parts of the country.

"This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed," McCain said on his campaign bus. "And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed," and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.

But Senator McCain was dealt a blow by Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister. Sen. McCain had been speaking for Maliki for a while, explaining that Iraq wanted the United States to continue its presence based on conditions on the ground. Watch as Sen. McCain squirms in answering Meredith Vieira's question:

But this presumptuous answer was crushed by the weight of Mr. Maliki's statement in an interview with Der Spiegel, a German magazine, on July 19th:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

McCain, with his legs knocked out from under him, was silent for a day or so. His campaign then put out a statement that sought to portray Maliki's statement as a result of Baghdad politics, arguing that it was politically advantageous for Maliki to make such a statement.

"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."

Of course, Maliki received a call from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq following the publication of the statements, and only after that phone call did Maliki backpedal a bit and claim that his remarks were mistranslated. However, the New York Times performed an independent translation:

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

So let's start reviewing the major flip flop. McCain, on April 22, 2004 at the Council of Foreign Relations, when asked if the United States should leave if asked by the Iraqi government, responded with the following:

PETERSON: We're now ready for questions. Please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, keep your questions to the point, if you would, and try to remember we have only one speaker here, speaker McCain. Our distinguished new head of the Washington office asked me to kick off one or two, senator, and let me try.

Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq -- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

So before the chaos of Election 2008, McCain held that position. Now that we're in the middle of the campaign he's held the position of no timetables, claiming that the Iraqi government agreed. When Maliki came out with his statement that he agreed with a solution more in line with Senator Obama's, McCain sought to couch this statement as one in line with his own views.

After a few days, though, McCain apparently had been thinking, because he radically changed his position yet again. Sixteen months "is a pretty good timetable," he said. Yes -- this is the same position advocated by Obama, and later, Maliki.

Now, it is clear that Millennials may be open to more flexibility in candidates positioning themselves on issues, as we've established that they are generally pragmatic in nature. But even the Millennial in me is kind of dizzy trying to keep track of this. It's pretty clear that the McCain campaign is sure riding some kind of merry-go-round when it comes to this issue. They can portray Obama's unclarity on the surge as flip-flopping all they want, but it seems to me, given all of this information, McCain is the one with an ungrounded position.

And yes -- a Republican is moving left for once. Enjoy it!

I mentioned this in a comment yesterday, but thought it was worth an individual post. Over the course of the last four years, the notion of "The Troops" and what it means to support them has undergone a radical transformation. In 2004, supporting the troops meant putting a yellow magnetic ribbon on the bumper of your car. During the '04 election, the troops were a bludgeon used to beat back Democrats and brand any opposition to the war as unpatriotic - indeed at times it was suggested that dissent was synonymous with giving comfort and aid to the enemy (a treasonous offense).

Since then, we've had four years of conservatives exploiting the troops as weapons and sheilds to fight their political battles, all the while short-changing them on the resources they need to safely execute their orders and build a middle class life once they leave the service.

First came the revelation that Private Jessica Lynch was used as a propaganda tool by the administration to create a war hero and drum up support for the conflict. Then came Cpl. Pat Tillman's death under friendly fire and the subsequent cover-up. Just this year, CREW uncovered shocking evidence that the Veterans Administration was purposefully blocking its administrators from diagnosing and treating PTSD in Iraq and Afghanistan vets. And all the while we've had reports that the administration failed to provide our troops the resources they needed in the field. Most recently, it was revealed the VA is blocking voter registration in their facilities and disenfranchising some of our most vulnerable troops.

It hasn't been all bad, though. We've made progress in the last 4 years as well - usually thanks to the Democrats. Early in the primaries, both Clinton and Obama sat down for serious - televised - discussions with young vets about the progress of the war, PTSD, health and education benefits, and more. To my knowledge, this was the first time since the war began that we had an honest national dialogue about what it truly means to support the troops. After a long fight, Democrats passed the 21st Century GI Bill, despite objections by both President Bush and Senator McCain.

Today, those successes continue as the Veterans Affairs Committee and the VA - after much hemming and hawing - plan to launch a massive campaign to raise awareness about and prevent suicide among our veterans.

Culturally, we are in a new space as well. Movies like Stop Loss, and In the Valley of Elah have created a much more complicated - and truer - vision of the troops and their experiences than the sanitized, heroic archetype paraded across the airwaves by political pundits. This trend, too, continues, most recently with the release of Generation Kill, by the creators of The Wire.

Changes to the cultural and political landscape now offer us a huge opportunity to permanently remove the troops as a weapon in the conservative arsenal and create more policies that provides real, tangible support for those who fight on our behalf. For me, this is a big part of a revamped foreign-policy. Young people - as troops, as activists, as now-respected members of the electorate - can help drive that change. This is a huge opportunity for us as a party and as a generation to do right by our peers and put our country back on track.

This is really disturbing. ABC News is reporting that the government is testing drugs with possible violent and suicidal side effects on veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD. Worse, it failed to notify those veterans of these possible side effects:

Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News and The Washington Times has found.

The report will air on Good Morning America and will also appear in The Washington Times on Tuesday. (click here to read the Washington Times coverage of "Disposable Heroes")

In one of the human experiments, involving the anti-smoking drug Chantix, Veterans Administration doctors waited more than three months before warning veterans about the possible serious side effects, including suicide and neuropsychiatric behavior.

"Lab rat, guinea pig, disposable hero," said former US Army sniper James Elliott in describing how he felt he was betrayed by the Veterans Administration.

Elliott, 38, of suburban Washington, D.C., was recruited, at $30 a month, for the Chantix anti-smoking study three years after being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He served a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq from 2003-2004.

Months after he began taking the drug, Elliott suffered a mental breakdown, experiencing a relapse of Iraq combat nightmares he blames on Chantix.

"They never told me that I was going to be suicidal, that I would cease sleeping. They never told me anything except this will help me quit smoking," Elliott told ABC News and The Washington Times.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Over the course of the last week, I've picked through the polling results from the recent Harvard Institute of Politics Survey and the joint MTV/CBS News poll. We've talked about Obama's lead among young voters, and McCain's deficit among the same, and we've talked about how young people are engaged at a much higher level this year than in previous years. Now I want to take a look at young voter's policy concerns.

There tend to be a few bits of conventional wisdom when it comes to young voters and policy issues. The first is that the only thing young people care about is the draft, or as Ralph Nader recently (and inaccurately) stated, the only thing that will increase youth engagement is the threat of a draft. The second is that young people are consumed by humanitarian issues like the genocide in Darfur. There are grains of truth in both statements - in 2004 there was a lot of messaging done by Rock the Vote and other groups around the draft that did in fact help spur youth turnout, and young people are disproportionately active around the issue of genocide. As with most pieces of conventional wisdom, though, these do not convey the whole truth.

The results of the Harvard IOP Survey reveal that the concerns of young voters have shifted radically since the fall of 2007. Six months ago, Iraq was the #1 issue for 37% of young Americans. Today, that number has shrunk to 20%. In March 2007, the economy was the top concern of just 5% of young people. Today it ranks as the greatest concern of 30% of young voters. The war was a motivator for youth action in 2004, but in 2008, it seems that the tanking economy will drive young people to the ballot box.

The Harvard IOP Survey honed in on these concerns through its novel use of multiple criteria in ranking the importance of youth issues. The survey asked respondents what issues were most important in determining how they would cast their ballot in November and what issues were most relevant to them personally. They used answers in both categories to construct a composite score that could more accurately reflect the importance of various policy issues to young voters:

The reasons for this shift, it turns out, is that most young people feel that our current economic downtown has a greater impact on them personally than the war. Young people who are applying to college or attending school are worried about the skyrocketing costs of tuition. Many are graduating from college, on average, with $20k in debt, and they are worried about their job prospects. According to the survey, 70% of college students believe that it will be difficult to find a job upon graduation. By contrast, the war only directly affects a small portion of young people today. If you are worried about how you will pay off your student loans and make rent next month, it gets a lot harder to worry about something happening on the other side of the globe. It's probably even harder when you consider how much activism has gone to opposing the war with so few tangible results.

Looking through the chart, there are some other interesting facts to be gleaned about the activism and policy concerns of the Millennial generation. In most polls that I've seen, the environment ranks well below bread and butter issues like the economy and health care. As the graph above shows, the environment typically garners a paltry 5% or so of support from most youth. Yet the environment usually is considered one of the policy areas around which young people - particularly college students - are most active. Meanwhile, health care consistently ranks as one of the top concerns of young people, but there is almost no youth activism around universal health care. It's a strange dichotomy and I've been at a loss to explain it.

Judging by the IOP results, "Net Relevance" seems to be the key. Both issues are perceived as important ones, yet for some reason young people tend to see the environment as a policy concern that more directly affects their lives. It's an interesting finding, and may be skewed by the fact that the survey sampled 18 - 24 year olds, fully half of which are in college and are thus likely to be on their university's health care plan (or that of their parents). I wonder if the two stats might reverse (and fall more in line with conventional wisdom) if the sample was expanded to cover all 18 - 29 year olds?

What's clear is that young people are driven by a variety of concerns, but the economy trumps all. In a year of record youth turnout, candidates up and down the ballot would do well to talk about creating an economy that help the Millennial generation - also known as Generation Debt - climb out of the economic hole.

I just finished watching an hour-long MTV roundtable in which Senators Obama and Clinton each spent half an hour talking to eight veterans under 30 years of age. This is first time I can remember in a political campaign that young veterans were looked at not as a prop for some National Security Theater, but rather as piece of the greater youth constituency with a distinct set of needs and concerns.

The event was slightly overproduced at times (the stories of the veterans were dramatic enough without the re-enactments), but it was honestly one of the best discussions of the campaign thus far on what it really means to support the troops (beyond buying a yellow ribbon) and just what the hell we're actually trying to accomplish in Iraq.

One thing in particular that shook me was the veterans' ages and the amount of time they've spent on active duty in Iraq. One of the veterans, who had a Purple Heart along with another medal, was just 22 years old and had spent 27 months in Iraq. That's more than 2 years out of 22 spent fighting in Iraq. That's astonishing and totally incomprehensible to me.

Hot topics were PTSD (7 of the 8 participants were diagnosed), homelessness and other transitional issues for soldiers reentering the civilian population, as well as some talk about the US strategy on the ground. Both Clinton and Obama talked about the need to fully fund the VA, provide job training and health care for veterans, remove the stigma around PTSD (in and out of the service), and some of the challenges in doing so.

Also discussed were the candidate's positions on the war and a timetable for withdrawal. Not all the veterans held the same views on this topic, and some expressed deep skepticism with plans for withdrawal. In particular, one veteran , after hearing Clinton explain how we failed to get the job done properly in Fallujah and thus had to retake the city twice, threw the analogy back on the Senator and asked how we could leave the country without finishing the job.

My personal impression was that Clinton's conversation was much more free flowing and detailed in her proposals and solutions for the issues raised, but the veterans didn't seem to agree. So I'll let them speak for themselves in grading the candidate's candor and ideas:

Response to Clinton

Obama Reactions

If it isn't enough that the majority of the 3,889 soldiers (as of 1am CDT 12/14/07) that are now dead from this war are under 30 - now apparently many who have survived the war are so plagued with mental illness that they are committing suicide.

Today I saw a short piece on CNN with heartbreaking parents talking about cooking Thanksgiving Dinner while unknowingly their son was bleeding to death from a self inflicted gunshot wound.

"The number of soldiers who committed suicide increased 15 percent from 2005 to 2006, according to an Army report... The numbers have not previously been released, despite repeated CNN requests for data covering the past seven months."

Reasons given by the Army in 2006

"were failed relationships, legal and financial problems and "occupational/operational" issues. The "typical profile" of a soldier who commits suicide is a member of an infantry unit who kills himself with a firearm.

So when I heard this - knowing that a majority of soldiers tend to be young I wanted to check demographic data.

70% of those who attempted suicide are under 25. Add to that the 16% who are 25-30 and you have 86% of our Millennial soldiers that are attempting suicide. Those who actually succeed 67% are 18-30.

According to Psyciatric News

"The U.S. Army announced in August that 99 soldiers committed suicide in 2006. That translates to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000. There were 948 soldiers who attempted suicide."

Another story I heard a few weeks ago on NPR was about soldiers who are being dishonorably discharged for behavioral occurrence. Often times soldiers who have PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) are discharged dishonorably for poor behavior, going AWOL, or substance abuse while on the job.

"Soldier Tyler Jennings says that when he came home from Iraq last year, he felt so depressed and desperate that he decided to kill himself. Late one night in the middle of May, his wife was out of town, and he felt more scared than he'd felt in gunfights in Iraq. Jennings says he opened the window, tied a noose around his neck and started drinking vodka, "trying to get drunk enough to either slip or just make that decision. . . . Jennings says that when the sergeants who ran his platoon found out he was having a breakdown and taking drugs, they started to haze him. He decided to attempt suicide when they said that they would eject him from the Army."

The piece goes on to say that a GAO study found that 80% of soldiers who exhibited potential signs of PTSD were not referred for mental health follow ups. And even if they do, the unit is so overwhelmed that they don't get the help they need.

It then says that a major problem is when their superiors or friends find out that they have emotional problems that they treat them like "pariahs" saying "they don't belong in the Army."

"Jennings called a supervisor at Ft. Carson to say that he had almost killed himself, so he was going to skip formation to check into a psychiatric ward. The Defense Department's clinical guidelines say that when a soldier has been planning suicide, one of the main ways to help is to put him in the hospital. Instead, officers sent a team of soldiers to his house to put him in jail, saying that Jennings was AWOL for missing work."

And when they can't intimidate them out of their emotional distress, they just fire them.

"Richard Travis, formerly the Army's senior prosecutor at Ft. Carson, is now in private practice. He says that the Army has to pay special mental-health benefits to soldiers discharged due to PTSD. But soldiers discharged for breaking the rules receive fewer or even no benefits, he says.

Alex Orum's medical records showed that he had PTSD, but his officers expelled him from the Army earlier this year for "patterns of misconduct," repeatedly citing him on disciplinary grounds. In Orum's case, he was cited for such infractions as showing up late to formation, coming to work unwashed, mishandling his personal finances and lying to supervisors — behaviors which psychiatrists say are consistent with PTSD."

It's hard to comment on this. The facts clearly speak for themselves. I spent many of my years in college being pissed that people I know were fighting a war I knew was stupid and wrong.

Thomas PM Barnett says it well in his analysis of what we did wrong in Iraq and how we could have done it better:

"I ask you, who joins the military to do things other than war? Actually, most of them. Jessica Lynch never planned on shooting back.

Now, a chunk of them are dead or they want to be. I know it isn't as many people as there were in Vietnam or in WW2 or WW1, but it doesn't diminish the fact that these are my people. My friends and yours, our sisters and brothers, and our college mates. Is this really how we want to treat them?

No wonder they are having hard time with recruitment.

So here's something I just noticed. Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel are proposing legislation for a new "GI Bill" to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars go on to college after their service. From a recent op-ed they penned in the New York Times:

Veterans today have only the Montgomery G.I. Bill, which requires a service member to pay $100 a month for the first year of his or her enlistment in order to receive a flat payment for college that averages $800 a month. This was a reasonable enlistment incentive for peacetime service, but it is an insufficient reward for wartime service today. It is hardly enough to allow a veteran to attend many community colleges.

It would cover only about 13 percent of the cost of attending Columbia, 42 percent at the University of Hawaii, 14 percent at Washington and Lee, 26 percent at U.C.L.A. and 11 percent at Harvard Law School.

College costs have skyrocketed, and a full G.I. Bill for those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan would be expensive. But Congress has recently appropriated $19 billion next year for federal education grants purely on the basis of financial need. A G.I. Bill for those who have given so much to our country, often including repeated combat tours, should be viewed as an obligation.

We must put together the right formula that will demonstrate our respect for those who have stepped forward to serve in these difficult times. First-class service to country deserves first-class appreciation.

Over at the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman provides a whole host of reasons to support such an effort, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are running an action campaign in support of new legislation.

So here's the thing - why are no progressive youth organizations partnering with IAVA or organizing their own campaigns? Young Democrats, USSA, Student PIRGs, Campus Progress . . . all of these organizations organized around the passage of the Cost of College Reduction Act, so why aren't they supporting legislation that would grant similar reprieve to their peers who have served our country?

I don't mean to be accusatory here. If you go to the websites of these organizations, they are all running a wide variety of action campaigns that are all very worthy - from ENDA to Global Warming - and work on the College Cost Reducation Act is not yet done. I recognize that there is only so much manpower that organizations can donate to their work, and at some level they need to prioritize. Yet it seems to me that this is a worthy cause on a number of levels. On a moral level, it's atrocious that so many veterans are now unemployed, unable to pay for school, and even homeless. We should do everything in our power to alleviate that situation. On a political level, this is a fantastic issue to make inroads with young people in the military who may now be disillusioned with the Republican Party.

Also, why on earth wasn't this included in the Cost of College Reduction Act in the first place?