I’ve always held the opinion that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the most idiotic military policy in history. Not only does it infringe on civil rights, it also weakens a military that relies on volunteer soldiers. I think the most famous example are the Army Arabic translators who were discharged for homosexuality during the most crucial need for their skills.

We’ve been hearing a lot of “change” rhetoric from President-elect Obama this last year. I’m sure everyone’s whispering their suggestions to Obama these days.

How much pull do you think over 100 retired generals and admirals will have regarding our military’s disgraceful “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:

“As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality,” the officers wrote.

As for Obama’s opinion, don’t expect the policy to change any time soon even though he spoke out against ‘Dont ask, Don’t Tell’ during his candidacy. It’s quickly becoming a very low priority for his cabinet:

While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own - an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.

“Although I have consistently said I would repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be,” Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.

Because the process has worked SOOOO well in the past.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Forget about “Be all you can be” and “An Army of One”, the new military recruitment angle is actually worth paying attention to.  It’s about acknowledging the honor and value of serving your country (not exactly a new concept) and it’s also about sympathy:

[video]

Granted the ad above focuses more on reaching out to soldiers returning home from deployments (which you’ll be guaranteed to experience as a new recruit), but the IAVA commercial also serves as a recruiting tool.

Check out the latest Army brainchild:  “Straight from Iraq“, where potential recruits can ask questions of soldiers who have been deployed.  Sounds like a sweet deal, right?

Just be cautious of the disclaimer you’re agreeing to after filling out your name, zip code, and email address:

The above disclosure is voluntary.  All information will be used strictly for recruiting purposes.  The authority for the collection of this information is Title 10, United States Code, Sections 503, 505, 508, and 12102, and EO 9397. For more information, please review our Privacy and Security Notice.

Which means the Army can do anything they damn please with your information.  Then again, if you want to enlist, then you’ll want to be contacted anyway.

So, is glorifying the “Iraqi deployment experience” going to work?  For guys ages 17-24, definitely!

Popularity: 3% [?]

There’s been an ongoing discussion here between myself and reader “An_Arab” about how justified the insurgents are or or not in attacking U.S. troops, and how justified the U.S. is in fighting the insurgents.

But with the security agreement between the U.S. and the government of Iraq that would allow U.S. troops to continue operating in Iraq still pending- meaning that if it’s not signed by Dec 31st all U.S. activities in Iraq would have to cease until an agreement is reached, and an incoming President Obama who has pledged to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of taking office, there is still one thing on everyone’s mind- the security of Iraq.

Something that was reinforced today in Baghdad, not in an attack on U.S. forces, not with a placed roadside bomb, but in twin violent suicide bombings that killed at least 28, injured roughly 68, and destroyed store fronts, and a bus full of school girls.

A suicide bomber struck Monday in a crowd gathered at the site of an explosion that moments earlier had damaged a bus filled with schoolgirls, with both blasts killing at least 28 people and wounding 68 others, authorities said.

Also Monday, a female suicide bomber attacked a security checkpoint in downtown Baqouba, killing five people including a local leader of Sunni group opposed to al-Qaida, police said. Fifteen other people were wounded in that explosion, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

The twin blasts — the deadliest in Baghdad in months — occurred during the morning rush hour in the mostly Shiite Kasrah section of Azamiyah neighborhood in the northern part of the Iraqi capital. They shattered storefronts along a crowded street and set fire to more than a dozen cars.

Police said the first explosion damaged a minibus carrying young girls to school. The second happened when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt in the middle of a crowd that had gathered around the vehicle.

Associated Press Television News video showed the minibus pocked with shrapnel marks with the floor soaked in blood. Girls’ shoes were scattered about amid the wreckage.

Ahmed Riyadh, 54, owner of a nearby grocery, said called it a ”vicious attack” that ”did not differentiate between Shiites and Sunnis.”

”We are fed up with such attacks and we want only to live in peace,” he said. ”The politicians should work hard and set aside their differences to stop the bloodshed.”

Nothing I can say in debate can illustrate nearly as well as this that the insurgents are not “justified” in their violence.  There are no political aims gained from events such as this.  This is violence for the sake of violence.  The average person on the street in Iraq doesn’t want violence no matter who is initiating it, they want what every person wants, peace and prosperity.

While I don’t agree with every move the U.S. military has made in Iraq, I could never sympathize with anyone who would kill so indiscriminately.  So there it is dear readers… better than any argument I could ever make, illustrated in real life.

Popularity: 2% [?]

I came across an amazing article by Politico about the support from military veterans the Republican party has enjoyed for the last thirty years.  After analyzing the voter turnout information, there’s something funny going on with military voters:  they’re moving Dem!

In the past two election cycles, Democrats have added ten new Democratic veterans to Congress. Last week, President-elect Barack Obama helped close the gap among military voters, winning 44 percent of veterans as opposed to John F. Kerry’s 41 percent in 2004.

To anyone who survived the bruising campaigns of the 1990’s, the thought that the Republican Party would surrender its stranglehold on military voters seems unbelievable. But the reality is that this image was never more than surface deep. All those political operatives who seemed to care so deeply about the heroic service of Republican nominees in 1992 and 1996 thought nothing of denigrating and attacking the service of Al Gore and John Kerry when it was the Republican candidate who had avoided serving in Vietnam.

But the really fascinating part is that military personnel haven’t always cared so much whether a candidate was a Republican or a Democrat.  It’s a relatively recent trend that we’re seeing more service members and veterans voting for Republicans.

Republicans did not always have a lock on military voters. Prior to Vietnam, military service was seen as an obligation of all Americans – regardless of political affiliation or wealth. George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy were both sons of privileged, politically-connected families who served heroically in the military during World War II. Back then, this was seen as your duty as an American – and no political party could lay an exclusive claim to the flag.

The Republican strangle-hold on military voters is actually rooted in nothing more than a campaign strategy:

The GOP’s ability to market itself as the “Party of the Military” grew in large part from schisms in the electorate arising during the Vietnam era. For a generation, Republicans exploited George McGovern’s 1972 campaign as a means to brand Democrats as unpatriotic and weak on national security – never mind the fact that McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Europe during WWII and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

It was during these formative years as a budding Republican operative that Karl Rove learned the tools of the trade. Ironically, Rove avoided serving in Vietnam so he could sharpen the political skills he would later use to brand Al Gore a fraud, Max Cleland a coward, and John Kerry a traitor. Never mind that Al Gore enlisted in the Army; Max Cleland left three limbs on the battlefield; and John Kerry fought his way to three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.

Senator McCain was the one true American hero of the Republican party.  Something many of his counterparts could never lay claim to:

For all the GOP’s patriotic imagery and testosterone-infused rhetoric, the sad truth is that most of the current crop of Republican leaders – Rudy Giuliani; Mitt Romney; Newt Gingrich; Mitch McConnell; John Boehner; etc. – were all of age at the time of Vietnam but avoided serving in the military.

Just one more irony of the Republican party.   But at this point, is it really any suprise?

Popularity: 2% [?]

As an Army veteran affected by the stop loss policy during the war in Iraq, I thought this would interest my fellow veterans:

A U.S. military spokesman says the U.S. Army’s use of involuntary combat duty extensions, known as stop loss, will probably continue through 2009.

Army Lt. Col. Mike Moose told USA Today that the number of soldiers affected by stop loss will remain at about 12,000 next year, the same number as last month.

Stop loss peaked in 2005 at more than 15,000 troops and fell to 8,500 in May 2007 after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered that involuntary extensions be minimized.

Some call stop loss the illegal extension of military contracts to boost troop levels.  Others call it at “back door draft”.  I call it bull-shit.  But that’s just this simple vets opinion.

Not sure what stop loss is?  Check out an explanation of it here or go watch this movie.

Popularity: 2% [?]