The Coffeespy

Per the Houston Chronicle:

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says the war in Iraq has exposed holes in domestic disaster response like the one currently under way in tornado-ravaged Kansas.

…

“He (Bush) assured me that he had additional equipment in his budget a year ago. What the Defense Department said then and continues to say is that states will get about 90 percent of what they had,” Sebelius said. “Meanwhile, it doesn’t get any better. I’m at a loss.”

According to FEMA:

FEMA has moved critical supplies into the affected area including 15,000 gallons of water for approximately 5,000 people and 21,000 Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) to feed 10,000 people. Staging areas for additional supplies and resources are being identified with the assistance of the state.

Also, within 24 hours the President had already signed a federal disaster declaration.  What does this do?  Let’s check FindLaw:

A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, and designed to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities.

There are two major categories of disaster aid:

1. Individual Assistance - for damage to residences and businesses or personal property losses, and
2. Public Assistance - for repair of infrastructure, public facilities and debris removal.

Uh oh… looks like the governor is getting funds for debris removal but complaining about her National Guard not being there to do it.  This reminds me of a coin trick where you get the patsy to look at one hand while you hide the coin in the other.

If the governor wants to complain that her state’s Humvee’s aren’t at 90%, that’s fine.  But I also hope she’s going to take responsibility for every state vehicle not in working condition, every bus that was on a field trip, and every state disaster consultant that happened to be on vacation, honeymoon, or sabbatical.

The straw man argument here is that the National Guard has no business being in Iraq.  This confuses me since we train our soldiers to fight.  Otherwise, the National Guard shouldn’t bother with Basic Combat Training, weapons qualifications, or even Humvees.  They should simply be issued shovels, trained to stack sand bags for floods, and get some spiffy pick-up trucks to tool around in.

Nice job, Madame Governor…

The executive and the military tell the Democrat(ic)s to quit sending timetables along with bills.

The executive, via the Washington Post:

“I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job,” Bush told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with Petraeus on Monday.

The military:

Gen. David Petraeus, the new Iraq commander, will try to persuade lawmakers in a private briefing this week to pursue a difference course.

What’s the response from Democrat(ic) poster child, Harry Reid?  Well, blame America, of course:

“Here is the bottom line,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a speech in which he quoted a retired Army general who opposes Bush’s policy. “Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy.”

General Petraeus has it right.  From National Journal writers on GovExec.com:

In the meantime, U.S. military leaders have one eye trained on a determined enemy in Iraq and the other on faltering political support back home, even as the war dangerously saps their forces’ strength. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, talks about a conflict waged almost in parallel dimensions, one that runs on Washington time and the other dictated by events in Baghdad.

“The Washington clock is moving more rapidly than the Baghdad clock,” Petraeus said in a televised interview. “So we’re obviously trying to speed up the Baghdad clock a bit to produce some progress on the ground that can, perhaps … put a little more time on the Washington clock.”

The military is trying to win the war before Congress and the media can convince the public they’ve lost.  They’re fighting a war on two fronts: one front has warriors with guns and bombs while the other has opportunists with agendas and deadlines.  I’m forever grateful that our military has the tools to overcome both of these ravenous beasts: fortitude, integrity, and a sense of duty.

From an Early Birded op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

CBS’s hit series “Criminal Minds” recently aired an episode entitled “Lessons Learned,” where FBI agents traveled to Guantanamo Bay and coaxed a confession from a known terrorist detainee that led to the prevention of an anthrax attack on a Northern Virginia shopping mall. The point of the story was that the regular interrogation tactics (pictured as brutal assaults on the prisoner) were not working, and that the military should adopt the enlightened methods of the crack interrogators from “Criminal Minds.”

Having served as an Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer in Gitmo, a legal adviser to criminal investigators pursuing leads in the war on terror, and a Military Commissions prosecutor, I have first-hand knowledge and experience about what happens there. And here is the ironic truth: The military has outlawed some of the “Criminal Minds” interrogators’ tactics — in response to pressure by the international community.

On TV, an analyst observed the detainee’s behavior from an adjoining room behind two-way glass for revealing body movements and language. Subtle movements and body language signaled which statements were true and which were false, leading to a breakthrough that saved lives. In reality, when such a tactic was used at Gitmo the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called it “torture.” Gitmo authorities used to employ Behavior Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs, pronounced “biscuits”), trained psychologists/psychiatrists who did exactly what the TV analyst did: used psychology to help interrogators learn the truth. But the ICRC considered their role in planning and assisting with interrogations “a flagrant violation of medical ethics.” The military responded by curtailing the role of BSCTs.

On TV, CIA and FBI interrogators used the detainee’s religion to gain leverage. The CIA interrogators refused to allow the detainee to pray; then the FBI allowed the prayers but adjusted them to manipulate the detainee’s sense of time. Because of the manipulation, the detainee admitted responsibility for an attack that he incorrectly believed had already occurred, allowing the attack to be thwarted. In reality, the U.S. does not manipulate detainee’s religious practices. In Gitmo, everything stops, including interrogations, so detainees can pray. The Islamic call to prayer is broadcast, several times a day, over loudspeakers. Everyone in and around the detention camp is forced to listen.

On TV, the interrogators give the detainee a prayer mat and point out the direction to Mecca to win his gratitude. In reality, the U.S. gives religious items such as prayer mats, prayer caps, prayer oil, prayer beads and Qurans to all detainees. They don’t need anyone to point out the direction of Mecca because the U.S. paints black arrows on the ground pointing toward Mecca in every cell and around the camp.

In fact, at Camp Bucca, a U.S.-run detention camp in Iraq, the U.S. erected a tent as a makeshift mosque and designated it off-limits to prison guards so that detainees could pray in solitude. The detainees used their privacy to turn the “mosque” into a weapons cache, and then attacked the prison guards. This led to a battle for control of the camp that lasted four days.

Despite the debacle at Camp Bucca, the military still designates some items (such as the Quran) as “off-limits” to prison guards, even though detainees misuse the Quran to conceal illegal contraband, including prescription pills. U.S. forces in Gitmo go to these great lengths despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions provide for POWs to practice their religion only “on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by military authorities.”

On “Criminal Minds,” the detainee glanced toward bottles of water lining a table, and said, “They line it up to show what I cannot have.” In reality, detainees at Gitmo receive ample food and water, including Halal meals and imported seasonal fruits and nuts from their native countries for special occasions.

While the crime show’s creators must resort to fiction to depict interrogations, they don’t have to fictionalize the contempt that most detainees show for Americans. Hollywood gets that part right. On TV, the fictional detainee said of killing innocent Americans: “There is no such thing, they were infidels . . . they hurt me by existing! The infidels will fall at the hands of the righteous, and that is when the jihad will end.”

In reality, according to Gitmo’s Web site, one detainee said, “The people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent . . . my group will shake up the U.S. and the countries who follow the U.S.” Another told military police officers that he would “come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep.” Yet another detainee threatened, “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of U.S. citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four of five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held and executed. They will have their heads cut off.” These real statements make one thing clear: life in Gitmo has not broken the detainees’ spirits.

Hollywood sets unrealistic expectations for many things. The “Criminal Minds” episode represents one instance where truth is tamer, and many would argue stranger, than fiction.

From an Early Birded story in the New York Daily News (bold text mine):

Democratic policymakers searching for a winning argument for why it’s time to get out of Iraq have ditched expert advisers - and appealed to the public for help.

Rank-and-file supporters have been asked to explain to the party why the troops should be brought home. And the best grass-roots tacticians could replace politicians as the public face of the Democrats.

“We want people like you to explain why it’s time to end the war and bring our people home, because most experts don’t see it our way,” party spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a circular sent to members.

“Rather than react to these out-of-touch Republican remarks with sound bites from Washington, D.C., consultants, who have the benefit of years of experience and training in this issue, we want our response to reflect the views of the people who matter most, those who will vote for us because they don’t have the aforementioned experience and training.”

The input of armchair politicians will be used in a campaign advertisement aimed at appealing more to voters than Washington experts would, Finney said.

“[Howard] Dean came to the [Democratic National Committee] with one goal, to put the Democratic Party in the hands of its grass-roots supporters White House by any means necessary,” she said.

“Instead of stating the case ourselves, because we have no rational basis, we want people like you to explain why it’s time to end the war so we can pander and exploit your ignorance for our own political purposes.”

Go Democrat(ic)s.  Next up - 5th graders to give DNC their views on global warming and the economy to forge new Dem platform.  “We’re doing it for the children,” commented Democrat #17.

Let’s pick on the Washington Post this morning.  Early Birded story from Page 1 courtesy of the Free Internet Press:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

That’s what the story is about.  But we all know this, so let’s look at some of the other things in the piece:

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

Democrat(ic)s are holding backroom meetings?  Hm, I don’t like that.  There won’t be a public transcript.  Ok, ok, that’s low… almost as low as shifting testimony, but I digress.  Why backroom?  What are they hiding?  Sounds like paranoid ramblings, no?  That’s because they are.

Anyway, here’s the bald truth:

“You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we’re going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory,” said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war.

You keep hearing “new direction.”  It’s a euphamism for “retreat.”  It’s stated plainly above.  Whenever you hear “new direction,” insert “retreat” and you’ll understand the position better.  More:

Bush and congressional Republicans have done their best to exploit the divisions, repeatedly mentioning that the Democrats are not united.

I did some searching on Bush playing up the divisions.  I didn’t find any.  That’s not to say they’re not out there, but the characterization is false.  It looks like the writer just threw Bush into the mix because, after all, he’s the source of all evil.  Remember, this is journalism - the unbiased reporting of facts.  Heh.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday that if Congress does not pass the supplemental war funding bill by April 15, the Army may have to slow the training of units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, or halt the repair of equipment. If the funding is delayed until May, he said, the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan might have to be extended “because other units are not ready to take their place.”

Let’s be plain here.  The Dems held this bill off long enough that there’s almost no time to renegotiate if Bush vetoes.  They added strings they knew he wouldn’t like.  It’s a set up for a Bush veto so they can point the “support the troops” finger like something out of a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd scene.  It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

• Right Wing Nuthouse talks about how hate has defeated the principles of the Democrats.  I thought hate WAS a principle to the Dems at this point…

I’m a little confused by an Early Birded Washington Post article this morning (reprinted by the Free Internet Press):

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such magnitude.

Lines of authority remained unclear in the reconstruction effort. With a demand for speed and a shortage of government personnel, much of the oversight was turned over to the contractors doing the work. There was little coordination among the various agencies. The result was a series of missed opportunities to address the unraveling situation, Bowen said.

I thought the job of nation building was on the State Department, not DoD.  Securing the area is on DoD, rebuilding is on State - with DoD assets at their disposal since the Army has the Engineer Corps.  If that’s wrong, why is State advertising jobs for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office?  From the job posting:

The Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO) was established by a Presidential Directive to coordinate the U.S. reconstruction program in Iraq, in cooperation with U.S. government agencies and the Iraqi government.

I guess I’m kind of tired of the whole mess being laid at DoD’s feet.  DoD’s responsibility is to examine every angle of the actual campaign (destroy the enemy, provide security).  They’ve failed on security, largely due to planning and the American public’s willpower (in the form of ROE restrictions, to be clear).  State’s job is to plan for the needs of the people and coordinate reconstruction.  They’re conspicuously absent in the stories I read on Iraq.

The report should be an interesting read when it’s released.  If anyone finds the thing on-line, please send the link.

Army policy is designed largely by Army civilians, lifelong bureaucrats who learn the ins and outs of how to play their officers.  The policy is put before an officer who signs or sends it back for a rewrite.  Officers spend a year or two in any given position.

This isn’t a news flash, but the bureaucrats are failing the soldiers.  From an Early Birded story in the Los Angeles Times:

A sniper shot Sgt. Joe Baumann on a Baghdad street in April 2005. The AK-47 round ripped through his midsection, ricocheted off his Kevlar vest and shredded his abdomen.

The bullet also ignited tracer rounds in the magazine on his belt, setting Baumann on fire.

Almost two years later, the 22-year-old California National Guard soldier from Petaluma, walks with a cane, suffers from back problems and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder that keeps him from sleeping and holding a job.

…

The question pending before a military review board at this big Army post south of Tacoma is whether to grant Baumann a military disability pension and healthcare or simply cut him an $8,000 check for his troubles.

…

In a preliminary ruling last month, the three-officer Physical Evaluation Board that is reviewing Baumann’s case decided for the severance check, rating his disability at only 20% and characterizing his post-traumatic stress disorder as “anxiety disorder and depression.”

If he accepted the $8,000, Baumann still would be eligible to apply for Veterans Affairs disability benefits. But VA benefits do not include retirement pay, family healthcare, and military post exchange and commissary privileges. In what many soldiers regard as the ultimate Catch-22, if he were accepted by the VA, he would have to pay the Army’s $8,000 back.

Thanks for taking a bullet, here’s $8k.  Have a nice day.

Fire these people.  Fire all of them.  The reason the bureaucracy is allowed to be this corrupt and careless is because they are secure in their jobs.  It takes a crowbar to get these people out of their positions.  That needs to change.

Remember when they were called public servants?

The media will try to play this up as the administration failing the soldiers.  It’s not.  It’s the bureaucrats failing to alter poor policies and leaving the soldiers out in the cold.  By the way, these policy-making bureaucrats are based largely in DC, where registered Democrat(ic)s outnumber the Republicans 9 to 1.

I was going to write about Kiley’s abrupt retirement but the Intel Dump beat me to the punch:

How much good does this do? Allowing Lt. Gen. Kiley to fall on his sword is an important symbolic act, but I don’t know that it will do a lot to solve the underlying issues raised by the Walter Reed story. If the Army doesn’t identify and fix the root causes of the mess — i.e. poor leadership, poor management, and an uncaring medical bureaucracy — then Lt. Gen. Kiley’s scalp will have been taken in vain.

I disagree Kiley’s ousting is limited to the symbolic.  As soon as he started caring about himself more than his soldiers, he ceased to deserve wearing the uniform.  The Intel Dump points out that the problems are still there and won’t be changed overnight.  They go too far in opining (without supporting the opinion) that the White House and Pentagon will ignore the advisory board charged with overhauling the medical system.  While I can’t say they will act on the advice of the board, I also can’t say they’ll ignore it.  The White House, in particular, seems keen on getting changes pushed through before ‘08, a fact evidenced by the convening of the board to begin with.

One of the comments gave me a ‘preach on brotha’ moment.  From IRR Soldier:

As a Jesuit Educated man, LTG Kiley betrayed St. Ignatius’ teachings of care for others and cura personalis (personal care). He needed to go … a long time ago. As an AMEDD officer, I’d heard rumors about his reputation as an officer who commanded by fear and intimidation. They were on full display from noon-to-night over the past month.

His smug testimony to Congress and appearance in ACUs on the Jim Lehrer News Hour displayed to the world just how out of touch he was as a leader and physician.

Where is YOUR blog, sir?  You need one.

Steve Chapman’s Early Birded Chicago Tribune op-ed covered the dismissed translators… again:

Many of those soldiers evicted under the existing policy have vital skills that are hard to replace, such as fluency in Arabic or Farsi. At the same time the military is discharging gays, it is compelled to embrace ex-cons. That’s the weird tradeoff we’ve chosen with don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

Actually, between 1998 and 2004 the military dismissed 20 Arabic and 6 Farsi speakers, according to an NBC report on DoD numbers.  In total, over 11,000 troops have been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  I participated in two of them, personally, and both of them turned out not to be gay - just using the rules to get out.  But that’s kind of an aside.

Anyway, back to Chapman:

But if liberals are often indifferent to practical issues, conservatives sometimes refuse to let facts get in the way of ideology. The argument that gays destroy cohesion and discipline can be evaluated on the basis of evidence. And there is considerable information to suggest that though it may have been true at one time, it’s not anymore.

A recent Harris poll indicates that most Americans now think homosexuals should be allowed to serve without staying in the closet, with 55 percent in favor and only 32 percent opposed. Among those who are ages 18 to 30–the chief recruiting pool–64 percent endorse that approach.

Of active-duty personnel, according to a Military Times poll, only 30 percent support accepting avowed gays. But even in the military, attitudes are malleable.

So… Chapman refutes the “cohesion and discipline” argument by stating poll results for the nation.  This is, of course, a dishonest approach because Chapman knows that the military polls much differently than the public.  Then, when he actually states number relevant to the military, he dismisses them because “attitudes are malleable.”

Here’s a simple solution: If you’re truly concerned about these people who were discharged, find out where they are now.  I bet those language skills are being put to use in other places where they’re just as necessary.  I also wonder how many of those “speakers” were indeed fluent and not simply schoolhouse linguists who washed out of the program of failed to adapt and used “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a convenient ticket out.

Lastly, I wonder why Chapman is so hard-nosed against ex-convicts.  Is he one of those ‘label for life’ types?  Seems so.  Rather than asking me who I’d rather sleep next to, as Chapman did, how about asking me who I’d rather have helping me kill the enemy (you know, the purpose of the military).  I’ll take the ex-con, please.

What’s happened at the biggest name in Army hospitals since the story broke?  Walter Reed’s commanding officer, Major General George Weightman, and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey lost their jobs.  MG Weightman was a no-brainer, but why Mr. Harvey?  Well, Mr. Harvey laid the blame for the conditions at Walter Reed on “some NCOs [noncommissioned officers] who weren’t doing their job, period.”  Brilliant analysis, Mr. Harvey.

The former commander of Walter Reed, General Kevin Kiley, is now the Army Surgeon General.  Kiley commanded Walter Reed from 2002-2004.  Interesting to find out the problems have been there since his tenure.  From an Early Birded story in the Washington Post:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee, cited an Oct. 12, 2006, Army memo indicating that a review team found problems with billeting, staffing and other issues at Building 18, the outpatient residential facility whose substandard conditions have been at the heart of the recent scandal. Both Weightman and Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army surgeon general, who previously commanded Walter Reed, acknowledged under questioning that they had been briefed on the findings.

“You knew these were problems,” Davis said. “You may not have known specifically what it looked like, and you may not have been able to put faces and stories behind it, but there was an ongoing concern.”

Kiley told Davis that his staff “informed me that the Walter Reed staff was working it, that they recognized that there were issues, and that they were taking action.”

I try not to name call in my blog because I feel it detracts from the atmosphere of reasoning.  Name calling is inflammatory and sets people who disagree in a defensive posture, almost guaranteeing no one is going to be able to see things another way.  However, Kiley is a true imbecile.  Or, to use a scientific term, a nimrod.  To hide behind “my people told me it was wrong, sure, but they said they were fixing it so it’s not my fault” means Kiley understands the position as commander of the post is not necessary.  If Kiley’s not making sure things are getting done, then what’s the purpose of his post?!  Is he just a set of ears that nods like a bobble head doll?  This is a three-star general saying things this stupid.

Fire Kiley.  He’s obviously not the calibre of soldier we need as Surgeon General of the Army.

Who, then, do you put in charge of this mess?  How about this guy:

Shannon was shot in the head during a firefight near Ramadi, Iraq, in November 2004 and has languished at Walter Reed ever since, awaiting plastic surgery so he can be fitted with a prosthetic eye. Paperwork for his retirement from the Army has been on hold.

But his ire yesterday was less about his own treatment than about the sense of betrayal he feels for younger soldiers he has tried to shepherd through the bureaucracy at Walter Reed.

“I will not see young men and women who have had their lives shattered in service to their country receive anything less than dignity and respect,” said Shannon, who at times said he is having difficulty controlling his anger.

He said some injured troops encounter so much bureaucracy that they give up and forgo benefits to which they are entitled. “I have seen so many soldiers get so frustrated with the process that they will sign anything presented to them, just so they can get on with their lives,” he said.

That’s the kind of indignant practicality I want on my side.  Find a guy like this and put him in charge.

Rapid update: I just read this… read the whole thing.  It confirms it: Kiley is a nimrod.  Weightman still deserves to be fired, but I wouldn’t say dismissed from the Army.  He has taken responsibility, apologized, and by the accounts writted, was sincere.  Kiley?  Get him out of the Army.