SEND A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON SO LOUD & CLEAR THAT EVEN RUMSFELD WILL HEAR

"Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that…Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes."
--Kevin Tillman, brother to slain football star-turned Army Ranger Pat Tillman, "After Pat's Birthday," posted to Truthdig.org Oct. 19, 2006. Kevin, also an Army Ranger, took part in the initial invasion of Iraq and also served in Afghanistan.



"They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?"
--Rudyard Kipling, in his poem, "Mesopotamia," written in 1917 after a gruesome military disaster resulting in the deaths of thousands of British troops during their invasion of Iraq. "Kipling wanted to know why the men who sent the soldiers to their deaths day after day, week after week, month after month in a futile exercise of arrogance and stupidity still managed to escape punishment," says Newsweek correspondent Christopher Dickey in his online piece quoting the poem, "A Brother's Rage," Newsweek, MSNBC.com, posted Oct.24.



I don't know if I have any readers left out there, since I have not posted since the 18th of August, just before my son returned--safely and in one piece, thank glorious God--from his harrowing, deadly second deployment to the vicious Anbar province of Iraq with the Marine Corps.

I did not post during my son's leave because I was trying to help him sort through his rage and grief over what had happened to him and his buddies in Iraq, and his fear of having to go back--YET AGAIN--to the same place for the same exercise in death-defying futility.

My son is a proud Marine, who served bravely and well--as did all his surviving buddies, with and without all their arms and legs--and he will return to that bloody and terrible place should the Marines ask it of him, which could very well happen.

But he is bitter and almost completely worn down by the sheer mental and physical and emotional exhaustion of recovering from one deployment, while, at the same time, enduring YET MORE war-training in YET ANOTHER desert while, all along, dreading the likelihood of going back and then, YET AGAIN, being forced to survive ANOTHER deployment to HELL before coming home to start the cycle ALL OVER AGAIN.

In case those of you who still think the Republicans are the family-values party, consider this: the military active-duty divorce rate has DOUBLED since the Iraq war began. It is impossible to manage a marriage and raise children when you are gone many months or a year or more to a harrowing war, have some time home, and then get sent back out to risk death for more months and years of absence, come home, and then get sent back out again. Military families understand that separation is a part and parcel of their lives, but not like this, not with this kind of awful endless stress. No one serving in any American war ever has had to deal with this. Once they did their duty, previous veterans, they got to come home, with or without the parades.

When Donald Rumsfeld literally grabbed a war-weary Army Stryker-force out of line as they were due to go home after a whole year in-country, and forced them to stay an extra four months, he not only doomed to die those who were subsequently sent home in body bags but he doomed a number of marriages that simply cannot stand the strain.

When my son heard what had happened to the Stryker force, he was horrified. "That's CRIMINAL," he said, "Somebody should be OUTRAGED. Why aren't more people OUTRAGED?"

I told him, This is why I do Blue Inkblots. Somebody should be outraged.

Of course, none of this counts the horrifying numbers of troops returning home with massive brain injuries, amputations, and desperate cases of post traumatic stress who, thanks to the stretched-thin ranks, get sent back anyway.

Then we're all shocked and awed when atrocities occur. As if anything that could possibly be perpetrated by a stressed-out soldier or Marine on the enemy can come CLOSE to the slaughter of Iraqi-on-Iraqi that is taking place to the tune of thousands of civilians being blown apart and tortured to death every single solitary day by their own countrymen.

And if you still think that the Republican party is the patriotic, support-the-troops party, consider this little dose of reality:

Bob Geiger, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America took a look at 324 legislative votes in the last five years which affected American troops and veterans. Legislative proposals included veteran's benefits, health care, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers (head injuries, etc.) Based on these votes, the IAVA calculated which senators and congressmen had a history of supporting the troops, and which didn't, and graded them on a curve. You can see the full results at the IAVA website. But Bob has put the Senate rankings in order of letter grade, and produced this handy chart…
--posted by Hunter on Daily Kos, Oct. 24, 2006.

(Guys, I did my best to copy over that chart here but was unable to do so. Suffice it to say that Democrats out-performed Republicans TWO TO ONE on voting for veteran's rights and the care of our active-duty troops. Most of the Republicans in close elections made D's on his curve.

* A reader has just posted the address for the rankings: http//www.vawatchdog.org. Click on "vote veterans" to be able to see the congressional rankings, including those of your own congressperson.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., a growing number of more than 100 active-duty American troops have submitted a petition to congress urging that the war be brought to an end and the troops brought home. They are able to do this without fear of repercussion because of the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act.

According to RawStory.com:

Hutto explained that the idea of issuing Appeals for Redress originated in early 2006,
when he was deployed off the coast of Iraq on the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt.

"An old buddy of mine, who was a member of the GI movement back in the early 1970s," Hutto explained, "sent me a 30th anniversary copy of Soldiers in Revolt, written by David Cortwright. The book chronicles the GI movement within the military during the Vietnam War who advocated to end that war and bring the troops home."

Hutto continued, "One of the avenues that they used, which was a legal one, is appealing to their political leaders in Washington. By 1971 over 250,000 of these active duty servicemen had appealed to the Congress people."

"None of the Marines know that there is a policy available to them," Madden added, "and that it’s everybody’s duty to support democracy and do it much more effectively than we are in exercising these rights in Iraq."

J.E. McNeil, a former military JAG lawyer, emphasized that all servicemen and women still have their rights as U.S. citizens and can exercise them when need be."

This is the tip of the iceberg of active-duty military members, from enlisted up to the highest ranks, who are horrified at the astonishing ineptitude with which they've been forced to fight this war, and want to see change, as requested by no less than eight retired generals just a few months ago.

Don't trust Pentagon predictions, either. When General Casey and others talk about how many Iraqi army troops have been trained and are ready to go, it belies the actual reality on the ground experienced by servicemembers like my son: At any one time, up to 50% of every Iraqi army battalion is AWOL or on leave. Plus, most of the Iraqi army refuses to serve away from their home districts. Casey himself requested six battalions of Iraqi army troops to help with the Baghdad massacres going on there, and TWO have shown up. This is why more American troops are being discussed for Baghdad. The much-vaunted Iraqi army is NOT standing up and we CAN'T stand down just because we've TRAINED them.

It is not unusual, in fact, for Iraqi army troops to refuse entry into neighborhoods that are responsible for most of the violence, because that neighborhood reflects their own tribal or religious sensibilities. Recently, we had to raid Sadr city, where most of the violence occurs, without notifying Iraq's prime minister. Bush can say what he wants, the truth on the ground is that we could not trust the Iraqi prime minister not to BETRAY US.

This insanity has got to stop. Just because Bush says, with great fanfare and press coverage, that he is no longer going to use the term stay the course does not mean that he will actually change that very course. In his recent much-publicized meeting with General Abizaid, the meeting lasted all of one-half hour.

The other photo-op meeting with generals was halted mid-meeting because of a power blackout coming from the insulated Green Zone of Baghdad, which prevented those generals from participating.

Remember when Dick Cheney's buddies out at Halliburton were given billions in no-bid contracts precisely to FIX all that? Where has that money gone?

Speaking of money, did you know that every single SECOND we spend another $6,300 in Iraq? The total tab could very well come to more than $1 TRILLION, or $6,600 in taxes paid by every man, woman, and child in this country. Or borrowed, I should say, because this president won't put the real costs in the Defense budget.

Instead, he has his rubber-stamp congress pass "emergency spending bills" in billions every year that he then borrows from China and others. That's how much the taxpayers will owe to foreign governments in the coming years, plus interest.

(So much for the $50 billion predicted by Donald Rumsfeld in the rush to war. Of course, let's not forget the $20 million that has been tucked away in the Defense department budget by these arrogant men for what? VICTORY CELEBRATIONS, in the biggest photo-op EVER. When they didn't get their "victory" this year, they just rolled the money on over into next-year's budget.)

I don't believe this country has ever witnessed a greater disconnect between an administration's photo-op, campaign war--and the reality of real war and it's real costs to our nation. Not even during Vietnam.

And as far as the much-hoped for Iraq Study Group headed by Bush family friend James Baker is concerned, who are supposed to come up with a major change in strategy after the elections, I saw Bush myself, say, "I don't have to do what the study group suggests. It's just suggestions."

Folks, the only way to stop the futility of the daily slaughter of our boys and girls over there is to fill Congress and the Senate with Democrats who will not assume the stance of See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil about this administration adopted by the Republicans who have served at its beck and call and whim for six long bloody horrifying years.

Yes, he will still hold the veto power which he has never used but will probably use daily with the Democrats, but at least he will not be allowed to run roughshod over congress any more. He will have to be held accountable for this terrible war.

Somebody, somewhere, has to end this madness.

And do you know who that is?

YOU.

Vote on November 7. Or vote absentee. But vote.

Vote to end the madness. Vote to end the insanity. Vote to stop a deaf dumb and blind administration from doing any more damage than they have already done, not just to this country, but to the world.

Vote for a REAL change in strategy in Iraq, not just a change in slogan. Do it now, because two years from now when we are voting new leadership...it may be too late.


They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?