MUTINY!
The Appeal for Redress of Grievances, which relies on whistleblower protection laws, calls for "the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq" and represents the first organized active-duty military movement to oppose the war and occupation of Iraq since Vietnam. To date, over 1,000 active-duty members of the US military have signed it. While signers of the appeal span the ranks from private to rear admiral, the average signatory is a corporal or sergeant and has completed at least one tour of duty in Iraq.
--"Breaking Ranks: Troops Call for Iraq Withdrawal," Charles E. Anderson, truthout.org Guest Contributor, January 15, 2007. Mr. Anderson served in Iraq with the Marine Corps' Second Tank Battalion during the invasion of Iraq. During his nine-year career, he served in infantry, armor, and medical units.
Seaman Jonathan Hutto, co-founder of the Appeals for Redress…and co-founder Sergeant Liam Madden (USMC), joined by sailors, Marines, airmen, soldiers, and veterans of at least one tour of Iraq…will deliver a copy of the signed document to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)…
Marine Sergeant Madden calls it "completely legal." The Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6) allows active-duty military, National Guard and Reservists, while out of uniform and off duty, to file and send a protected communication to a member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal…
Madden spent seven months in the thick of it in Haditha, time that he initially refused to talk about, claiming "it has nothing to do with the Appeal for Redress." But then he said that he was one of the "lucky ones, I didn't come home with any physical or mental problems." When asked what his plans are for the future, Sgt. Madden replies, "To keep on with this struggle until this illegal, immoral war is over."
--"Iraq Vets Call on Congress to End War," Stacy Bannerman, January 15, 2007. Bannerman is the author of When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists and the Families They Leave Behind (Continuum Publishing, 2005). She is a member of Military Families Speak Out.
Majority Democrats are already working on texts designed to attract maximum Republican support. The Senate vote will be especially telling, since Democrats need to find 10 votes among their opponents to gather the 60 needed to defeat the filibuster promised by minority leader Mitch McConnell, a loyal backer of the President. If they succeed, it will be seen as further proof that Mr. Bush has lost control of the Capitol Hill wing of his party, as Republican congressmen and senators facing re-election in 2008 run for cover from a war that sent the party to defeat in November's mid-term vote. "Everybody is scared spitless," John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, told the New York Times.
--"Bush Faces Mutiny Over Extra Troops in Iraq," Rupert Cornwell in Washington, for the British newspaper, The Independent, January 15, 2007.
Back in 1846, President James K. Polk saw a golden opportunity to seize thousands of square miles of land--roughly Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona--from Mexico.
So he trumped up a fake "attack" by Mexican soldiers on American troops stationed on the border and declared war on Mexico.
There were plenty of politicians in Congress who saw right away the bogus ploy, and they had two choices: try to shout down the warmongers, or back Polk's war.
Those who tried to oppose Polk soon found themselves the brunt of furious accusations in the press of not being patriotic enough, of not loving their country, and of withholding support from our brave fighting men. Most of them were cowed by such attacks and backed down.
One young congressman would not be deterred. In a series of rousing speeches, he claimed that, "from beginning to end, this war is the sheerest deception…" and stoutly maintained that, "The president had hoped to escape public scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory…that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy."
When the flag-wavers turned vicious, the freshman congressman still held his ground, likening the president's message to, "the half-insane mumbling of a fever-dream…a war of conquest brought into existence to catch votes."
But that war-fever had already been whipped into a frenzy, and not only was the courageous young congressman ignored, but his passion for peace cost him his job. He was soundly defeated for re-election after serving just one two-year term, and returned to private law practice to live a quiet life away from the public eye.
History, however, had different plans for him.
While most of us have no idea of the names of the politicians and newspaper editors who vilified the scrawny young congressman, we do, however, remember HIS.
It was Abraham Lincoln.
Throughout the years, there have been other congressmen and women of principle, who risked their work and their careers to fight for the fighters. Listen to the words of the first presidential candidate I ever voted for:
"Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave…This chamber reeks of blood."
--Senator George McGovern, on the floor of the Senate on Sept. 1, 1970, quoted in the article, "Mustering the Courage to End War," Robert Mann, Boston Globe, January 15, 2007. When McGovern was ridiculed for his dissent as a "cut and run" policy, the decorated WWII bomber pilot replied, "Do not talk to the wounded about bugging out or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman or a senator or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed."
There are all different kinds of courage in this world. We all know the kind of courage it takes for a young Marine or soldier to strap on a hundred pounds of gear, body armor, and helmet, pick up an M-16, and head out into the blazing sun or the cold dark of night in a country filled with people who want nothing more than to kill him or her before the end of the day. If their best friend is blown apart in front of their eyes, and they race that friend to the field hospital, and wait and pray, and find that it is too late, and kiss their buddy good-bye forever--the very next thing they do is pick up that rifle and head back out into the line of fire again.
They do this even when they KNOW the cause is lost, and not because they are stupid or blindly obedient, but because this is their LIFE, it is their WORK, and they hope against hope that no matter how bad things get, that somehow, some way, what they do will matter in this world.
It takes the most craven kind of cowardice in the world to keep sending these brave young troops back out into that heat over and over and over again just because you are afraid what will happen to your career or your place in history if you call them back.
And it takes a whole other kind of courage to fight those who would destroy you for no other reason than that you have opposed them.
Although the thousand-plus active-duty troops and officers who have signed the Redress petition did so under a Whistle-Blower's law, we all know the kinds of underhanded things that can be done to destroy a military career by even so much as one superior officer who finds such an action offensive. To put your name on the dotted line, to stand in front of television cameras and speak out, knowing full well that you will most likely be sent back into that very war to fight again before you ever get out of that uniform takes a kind of courage that most people can't even begin to imagine in their lives--most especially, politicians.
They say that wars are fought not for God and country and mom and apple pie, and not for politics, but for, as my son said during his time in the Battle of Fallujah, "for the guy in front of me and the guy behind me and the guys on either side of me."
Guys fight, quite simply, to get their buddies home. They fight to accomplish a mission, yes, but their primary concern is getting home alive with all their buddies.
The men and women who signed the petition for Redress are also doing so for their buddies, believe me.
My son called to tell me that one of his buddies was scheduled to deploy in April but will now be leaving in February, and rather than a seven-month combat deployment--and believe me, no one sees tougher wartime combat conditions than Marine Corps grunts, especially the NCO's like my son and his buddy--rather than seven months of hell, he'll be required to put in the better part of a year.
If he lives that long, of course. And this is his third deployment.
My son also told me how, on base, there are increasing signs of mental and emotional strain among the troops--not just incidents of post traumatic stress and suicide, but domestic violence and divorce.
Bush can feel as brave as he wants to feel as he "stands alone" with his miserable failure of a plan, but he does not know the MEANING of the word, "bravery."
Those who signed that petition have already done their time in hell and know they will most likely be forced to return. They also know that by signing that petition, they may be opening themselves up to all manner of harassment.
Somehow though, this time, I don’t think so.
My son wanted to know how on earth the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a country where seventy percent of the American people oppose him. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a country when the entire joint chiefs of staff oppose him. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a Congress where the majority are opposed to the plan. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on commanders on the ground who do not think this policy will work. He wanted to know how the president could get away with ordering the military into another failed policy plan when a large majority of the military is opposed to the plan.
My active-duty Marine Corps son who has served two deployments to Iraq actually said, "He's acting like Saddam."
My son wanted to know what Congress was doing to stop Bush. I told him that, technically, there was not much they could do under the Constitution to stop the president other than cut off funds to the troops, which no one wanted to do, but that they were working on it.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa), chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee, said he would not limit funds for the troops already in Iraq but would try to put language in the bill carrying supplemental funds for the war that could prevent the final two U.S. brigades from going over in April and May.
His vehicle would be roughly $100 billion in supplemental funds for the war that the White House has said it would send Congress in February. Murtha said he would use hearings on that legislation to show there are no reserve U.S. troops available in case of conflicts with Iran or North Korea.
Describing limitations he might put on the supplemental bill, Murtha said, "I'm going to build a case that says we're in danger because we don't have a strategic reserve" and that troops would not be sent back if they haven't finished their training cycle. He also said, "I don't know how many troops they can get in the field before we get our bill up and passed in Congress."
--"Democrats Differ on Iraq Bill's Bite; Some See It as a Powerful Statement, but Murtha Would Give It Fiscal Teeth," Walter Pincus, Washington Post, January 15, 2007
Already there are signs that this is a cluster-you-know-what every bit as botched as the initial invasion, in that it is being rushed so fast in order to bypass Congress and any stopgap measures they might put forth, that conditions on the ground are chaotic. For one thing, the plan calls for "twinning" and "partnering" Americans with Iraqi troops and nobody knows what the hell that means. Also, there are no plans for the implementation of supply lines for fuel and ammunition and so on, not just for the added American troops, but for the added Iraqi troops, and that is just the start of the problems….
The signs so far have unnerved some American s working on the plan, who have described a web of problems--ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad's most dangerous districts--that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.
…"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."
…The new command structure seemed rife with potential for conflect. An American military official said that the arrangements appeared unwieldy, and at odds with military doctrine calling for a clear chain of command. "There's no military definition for 'partnered,' he said.
…Another concern is that the target of the new Baghdad plan--Sunni and Shiite extremists--may replicate the pattern American troops have seen before when they have embarked on major offensives--of "melting away" only to return later.
--"U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans," John F. Burns, New York Times, January 15, 2007
You will hear the plan's proponents raise up the Holy Grail of Tal Afar, and how successful this type of plan was there two years ago. However, Tal Afar was not a mixed neighborhood like Baghdad, and it only had a population of 60,000. Further, American troops basically built a wall around the city to protect it. None of those options are available now in Baghdad, which holds one-quarter of the population of the entire country, in violently segregated neighborhoods at war with one another and ethnic cleansing fully underway.
The bottom line is this: Every single military decision made by this administration since before the invasion has proved to be WRONG WRONG WRONG. Every time they are opposed from within the ranks, they replaced those who opposed them with yes-men who would go along with yet another failed plan.
It's different, now.
Yes, Bush has replaced those who opposed him in his command structure, and muzzled the joint chiefs.
But he hasn't got an eighty percent approval rate now like he did in the beginning, and he no longer has a rubber-stamp Republican congress willing to go along with any travesty in order to please their lord and master. He no longer has the overwhelming support of the American people, and he no longer has the unequivocal backing of the military itself.
By racing to bypass Congress and thrust troops into action before their training is complete, into a ground situation that is not ready for them, he will only find himself caught in his own trap. Even those preening parrots of the punditry who babble whatever they are told by the White House will find themselves speaking in tongues before very much more time goes by. Watch and see.
And the Democrats and moderate Republicans in congress who will receive--TODAY--a Redress petition to end the war signed by brave troops who have already paid a terrible price--those men and women of Congress and the Senate are getting sick and tired of serving in a chamber that reeks of blood.
I hope that all the men and women who are bravely clamboring into their suits of armor before riding off--yet again--to fight the savage dragon…I hope they know that back home, their buddies have their backs, military families who are fighting for them to come home have their backs, and even politicians in power who now have the wherewithal to go into battle on their behalf are also fighting to get them home. We've all got their backs.
We will not forget. We will not give up. We will not be swift-boated. We will not back down.
Abraham Lincoln would be proud.
--"Breaking Ranks: Troops Call for Iraq Withdrawal," Charles E. Anderson, truthout.org Guest Contributor, January 15, 2007. Mr. Anderson served in Iraq with the Marine Corps' Second Tank Battalion during the invasion of Iraq. During his nine-year career, he served in infantry, armor, and medical units.
Seaman Jonathan Hutto, co-founder of the Appeals for Redress…and co-founder Sergeant Liam Madden (USMC), joined by sailors, Marines, airmen, soldiers, and veterans of at least one tour of Iraq…will deliver a copy of the signed document to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)…
Marine Sergeant Madden calls it "completely legal." The Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DOD directive 7050.6) allows active-duty military, National Guard and Reservists, while out of uniform and off duty, to file and send a protected communication to a member of Congress regarding any subject without reprisal…
Madden spent seven months in the thick of it in Haditha, time that he initially refused to talk about, claiming "it has nothing to do with the Appeal for Redress." But then he said that he was one of the "lucky ones, I didn't come home with any physical or mental problems." When asked what his plans are for the future, Sgt. Madden replies, "To keep on with this struggle until this illegal, immoral war is over."
--"Iraq Vets Call on Congress to End War," Stacy Bannerman, January 15, 2007. Bannerman is the author of When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists and the Families They Leave Behind (Continuum Publishing, 2005). She is a member of Military Families Speak Out.
Majority Democrats are already working on texts designed to attract maximum Republican support. The Senate vote will be especially telling, since Democrats need to find 10 votes among their opponents to gather the 60 needed to defeat the filibuster promised by minority leader Mitch McConnell, a loyal backer of the President. If they succeed, it will be seen as further proof that Mr. Bush has lost control of the Capitol Hill wing of his party, as Republican congressmen and senators facing re-election in 2008 run for cover from a war that sent the party to defeat in November's mid-term vote. "Everybody is scared spitless," John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, told the New York Times.
--"Bush Faces Mutiny Over Extra Troops in Iraq," Rupert Cornwell in Washington, for the British newspaper, The Independent, January 15, 2007.
Back in 1846, President James K. Polk saw a golden opportunity to seize thousands of square miles of land--roughly Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona--from Mexico.
So he trumped up a fake "attack" by Mexican soldiers on American troops stationed on the border and declared war on Mexico.
There were plenty of politicians in Congress who saw right away the bogus ploy, and they had two choices: try to shout down the warmongers, or back Polk's war.
Those who tried to oppose Polk soon found themselves the brunt of furious accusations in the press of not being patriotic enough, of not loving their country, and of withholding support from our brave fighting men. Most of them were cowed by such attacks and backed down.
One young congressman would not be deterred. In a series of rousing speeches, he claimed that, "from beginning to end, this war is the sheerest deception…" and stoutly maintained that, "The president had hoped to escape public scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory…that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy."
When the flag-wavers turned vicious, the freshman congressman still held his ground, likening the president's message to, "the half-insane mumbling of a fever-dream…a war of conquest brought into existence to catch votes."
But that war-fever had already been whipped into a frenzy, and not only was the courageous young congressman ignored, but his passion for peace cost him his job. He was soundly defeated for re-election after serving just one two-year term, and returned to private law practice to live a quiet life away from the public eye.
History, however, had different plans for him.
While most of us have no idea of the names of the politicians and newspaper editors who vilified the scrawny young congressman, we do, however, remember HIS.
It was Abraham Lincoln.
Throughout the years, there have been other congressmen and women of principle, who risked their work and their careers to fight for the fighters. Listen to the words of the first presidential candidate I ever voted for:
"Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave…This chamber reeks of blood."
--Senator George McGovern, on the floor of the Senate on Sept. 1, 1970, quoted in the article, "Mustering the Courage to End War," Robert Mann, Boston Globe, January 15, 2007. When McGovern was ridiculed for his dissent as a "cut and run" policy, the decorated WWII bomber pilot replied, "Do not talk to the wounded about bugging out or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman or a senator or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed."
There are all different kinds of courage in this world. We all know the kind of courage it takes for a young Marine or soldier to strap on a hundred pounds of gear, body armor, and helmet, pick up an M-16, and head out into the blazing sun or the cold dark of night in a country filled with people who want nothing more than to kill him or her before the end of the day. If their best friend is blown apart in front of their eyes, and they race that friend to the field hospital, and wait and pray, and find that it is too late, and kiss their buddy good-bye forever--the very next thing they do is pick up that rifle and head back out into the line of fire again.
They do this even when they KNOW the cause is lost, and not because they are stupid or blindly obedient, but because this is their LIFE, it is their WORK, and they hope against hope that no matter how bad things get, that somehow, some way, what they do will matter in this world.
It takes the most craven kind of cowardice in the world to keep sending these brave young troops back out into that heat over and over and over again just because you are afraid what will happen to your career or your place in history if you call them back.
And it takes a whole other kind of courage to fight those who would destroy you for no other reason than that you have opposed them.
Although the thousand-plus active-duty troops and officers who have signed the Redress petition did so under a Whistle-Blower's law, we all know the kinds of underhanded things that can be done to destroy a military career by even so much as one superior officer who finds such an action offensive. To put your name on the dotted line, to stand in front of television cameras and speak out, knowing full well that you will most likely be sent back into that very war to fight again before you ever get out of that uniform takes a kind of courage that most people can't even begin to imagine in their lives--most especially, politicians.
They say that wars are fought not for God and country and mom and apple pie, and not for politics, but for, as my son said during his time in the Battle of Fallujah, "for the guy in front of me and the guy behind me and the guys on either side of me."
Guys fight, quite simply, to get their buddies home. They fight to accomplish a mission, yes, but their primary concern is getting home alive with all their buddies.
The men and women who signed the petition for Redress are also doing so for their buddies, believe me.
My son called to tell me that one of his buddies was scheduled to deploy in April but will now be leaving in February, and rather than a seven-month combat deployment--and believe me, no one sees tougher wartime combat conditions than Marine Corps grunts, especially the NCO's like my son and his buddy--rather than seven months of hell, he'll be required to put in the better part of a year.
If he lives that long, of course. And this is his third deployment.
My son also told me how, on base, there are increasing signs of mental and emotional strain among the troops--not just incidents of post traumatic stress and suicide, but domestic violence and divorce.
Bush can feel as brave as he wants to feel as he "stands alone" with his miserable failure of a plan, but he does not know the MEANING of the word, "bravery."
Those who signed that petition have already done their time in hell and know they will most likely be forced to return. They also know that by signing that petition, they may be opening themselves up to all manner of harassment.
Somehow though, this time, I don’t think so.
My son wanted to know how on earth the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a country where seventy percent of the American people oppose him. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a country when the entire joint chiefs of staff oppose him. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on a Congress where the majority are opposed to the plan. He wanted to know how the president could get away with forcing wartime policy on commanders on the ground who do not think this policy will work. He wanted to know how the president could get away with ordering the military into another failed policy plan when a large majority of the military is opposed to the plan.
My active-duty Marine Corps son who has served two deployments to Iraq actually said, "He's acting like Saddam."
My son wanted to know what Congress was doing to stop Bush. I told him that, technically, there was not much they could do under the Constitution to stop the president other than cut off funds to the troops, which no one wanted to do, but that they were working on it.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa), chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee, said he would not limit funds for the troops already in Iraq but would try to put language in the bill carrying supplemental funds for the war that could prevent the final two U.S. brigades from going over in April and May.
His vehicle would be roughly $100 billion in supplemental funds for the war that the White House has said it would send Congress in February. Murtha said he would use hearings on that legislation to show there are no reserve U.S. troops available in case of conflicts with Iran or North Korea.
Describing limitations he might put on the supplemental bill, Murtha said, "I'm going to build a case that says we're in danger because we don't have a strategic reserve" and that troops would not be sent back if they haven't finished their training cycle. He also said, "I don't know how many troops they can get in the field before we get our bill up and passed in Congress."
--"Democrats Differ on Iraq Bill's Bite; Some See It as a Powerful Statement, but Murtha Would Give It Fiscal Teeth," Walter Pincus, Washington Post, January 15, 2007
Already there are signs that this is a cluster-you-know-what every bit as botched as the initial invasion, in that it is being rushed so fast in order to bypass Congress and any stopgap measures they might put forth, that conditions on the ground are chaotic. For one thing, the plan calls for "twinning" and "partnering" Americans with Iraqi troops and nobody knows what the hell that means. Also, there are no plans for the implementation of supply lines for fuel and ammunition and so on, not just for the added American troops, but for the added Iraqi troops, and that is just the start of the problems….
The signs so far have unnerved some American s working on the plan, who have described a web of problems--ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad's most dangerous districts--that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.
…"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."
…The new command structure seemed rife with potential for conflect. An American military official said that the arrangements appeared unwieldy, and at odds with military doctrine calling for a clear chain of command. "There's no military definition for 'partnered,' he said.
…Another concern is that the target of the new Baghdad plan--Sunni and Shiite extremists--may replicate the pattern American troops have seen before when they have embarked on major offensives--of "melting away" only to return later.
--"U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans," John F. Burns, New York Times, January 15, 2007
You will hear the plan's proponents raise up the Holy Grail of Tal Afar, and how successful this type of plan was there two years ago. However, Tal Afar was not a mixed neighborhood like Baghdad, and it only had a population of 60,000. Further, American troops basically built a wall around the city to protect it. None of those options are available now in Baghdad, which holds one-quarter of the population of the entire country, in violently segregated neighborhoods at war with one another and ethnic cleansing fully underway.
The bottom line is this: Every single military decision made by this administration since before the invasion has proved to be WRONG WRONG WRONG. Every time they are opposed from within the ranks, they replaced those who opposed them with yes-men who would go along with yet another failed plan.
It's different, now.
Yes, Bush has replaced those who opposed him in his command structure, and muzzled the joint chiefs.
But he hasn't got an eighty percent approval rate now like he did in the beginning, and he no longer has a rubber-stamp Republican congress willing to go along with any travesty in order to please their lord and master. He no longer has the overwhelming support of the American people, and he no longer has the unequivocal backing of the military itself.
By racing to bypass Congress and thrust troops into action before their training is complete, into a ground situation that is not ready for them, he will only find himself caught in his own trap. Even those preening parrots of the punditry who babble whatever they are told by the White House will find themselves speaking in tongues before very much more time goes by. Watch and see.
And the Democrats and moderate Republicans in congress who will receive--TODAY--a Redress petition to end the war signed by brave troops who have already paid a terrible price--those men and women of Congress and the Senate are getting sick and tired of serving in a chamber that reeks of blood.
I hope that all the men and women who are bravely clamboring into their suits of armor before riding off--yet again--to fight the savage dragon…I hope they know that back home, their buddies have their backs, military families who are fighting for them to come home have their backs, and even politicians in power who now have the wherewithal to go into battle on their behalf are also fighting to get them home. We've all got their backs.
We will not forget. We will not give up. We will not be swift-boated. We will not back down.
Abraham Lincoln would be proud.
posted by Deanie Mills at 2:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home