The public has long since exhausted our jabs, sneers, and disgust at the speech President Bush famously made on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Today, the White House finally expresses regret.

But Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, is just now saying that the Bush administration has “certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner”.

Have you really paid the price, Ms. Perino? Nearly five years have passed since Bush made that speech and the White House is just now marking its error. The mission is far from accomplished… soldiers lives confirm this.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Hey all you soldiers out there! Mandatory Christianity isn’t ok. And if you don’t think it’s happening in the military, take a second look:

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.

It seems strange, right? I mean… we’re a country of equality. Especially religious equality. But it’s amazing how little discrimination can be felt if you’re Christian too. Try spending a few days in the military as an Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or Jew.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.”

hmmm…. sounds familiar in most units. Mandatory prayer on the unit level and in major functions. To be chastised for non-participation in prayers and religious events isn’t a shock.

Kudos for Spc. Hall for having the guts to take action against Commanders who push their personal beliefs on enlisted soldiers.

Popularity: 3% [?]

erm… Make that Capital Hill.  Well, in a roundabout way.  They’re starting in California.

On Monday Vets of OIF, OEF, and other U.S. wars will be heading to federal court after filing a lawsuit that states they have not been receiving proper medical care since they’re deployments.

The lawsuit before a judge in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was unable to deal with the growing number of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, cases emerging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system and other social services in our communities,” the suit said.

Some of those in the suit say they have suffered from PTSD for many years, even before the most recent wars highlighted the fate of many Americans who served in difficult combat abroad.

Those saying the VA failed them include Barbara Bachmeier, 54, who reports she was sexually harassed and raped in South Korea in the 1980s while working in military intelligence for the U.S. Army, and then received insufficient care.

“I was having all these various flashbacks and nightmares,” the Alaska resident said in an interview. “But the VA does not want to pay disability payments unless they really have to.”

“Their attitude is not what can we do to help you,” she said, explaining she once considered suicide. “It was very difficult to navigate the VA system.”

In proceedings that could last through May 1, the court will hear testimony not from former service members such as Bachmeier, but from administrators and officials involved in the system.

“He (the judge) can’t actually make decisions about individual issues and while having a veteran talking about their individual experiences is emblematic of the problem, it’s not particularly useful for the judge because he needs to hear about systemic problems,” said Kasey Corbit, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

How this will play out in court remains to be seen- but if nothing else it will shine an even bigger spotlight on a very real, long term, continuing problem that is plaguing troops today.

We’ll continue our coverage on this case as it happens until it’s conclusion- for better or worse.

Popularity: 4% [?]

In Iraq 2005, every building you went to on a military installation had a poster, every dining hall had a table setting, and we watched as periodically someone would place a piece of tape with a new rank for Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin, a Private First Class when he was captured in 2004 as his convoy was ambushed west of Baghdad.

Last month Maupin’s remains were recovered almost 4 years to the day of his disappearance. Also last month Sgt. Kent Maupin, Matt’s younger brother, reenlisted in the Marines. This brings one story to an end, and adds a new beginning for another. As of yet, very few details have been released about what happened to Matt Maupin.

I can’t imagine what the family is going through, nor the amount of pride and committment that Kent Maupin feels in his duty. I admire him for his convictions, as I know they would not be my own. I only wish for his safety and well being in the future, where ever it may take him. And for the whole family, perhaps a sense of closure as finally they can lay their son to rest.

Popularity: 2% [?]

With the success of the troop surge in Iraq (so says Gen. Petraeus), President Bush has decided to give the troops a break. He’s ordered a deployment cut back from 15 months to 12 months.

Whoop-de-friggin’-do.

A few things to consider:

The 12 month combat tours won’t take affect until August, 2008. Too bad, so sad for all the soldiers in the desert right now who still have to complete their 15 months tours.

It’s also interesting to note that the “new” deployment tours take affect only a few months before a new president moves into the White House. That translates into troop availability not being affected until August 2009. This could potentially be a move to disable options available to the new president who may not have as much flexibility with troop increases or decreases.

And another point made by Phillip Carter at the Washington Post who argues that the 12 month long Army deployments are still too long:

This is an extremely long deployment, particularly for troops engaged in dangerous work outside the wire and away from the comforts of large U.S. bases. The combat-stress literature suggests there is a finite limit to the quantity of combat an individual can experience before he/she breaks down and becomes “combat ineffective.” For sustained major combat operations, like Guadalcanal or the Hurtgen Forest, that figure is 60 days or so. We don’t know exactly what the figure is for sustained counterinsurgency operations of the sort practiced in Baghdad or Baqubah. But there is a limit. And the most recent mental health survey statistics from the Pentagon indicate that we are rapidly pushing our soldiers and Marines toward it — and beyond — in order to sustain the force in Iraq.

It’s apparent the damage is done for the troops who have completed both 12 and 15 month tours. Not to mention multiple deployments… many have completed three or more year long tours already. And at what cost? At the cost of “staying the coarse”?

Popularity: 4% [?]

After The Philadelphia Gay News ran a large blank space on its front page last week- next to an interview with Hillary Clinton highlighting the slight that they felt Barack Obama had given them by not speaking with the paper, Obama sat down with the Advocate to discuss what he feels he could accomplish as President to benefit not only the gay community, but the U.S. as a whole.

”I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Obama said in an interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine.

”But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy,” he said. ”We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe.”

Speaking about the “snub” against The Philadelphia Gay News Obama said ”The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love, but basically all press feels that way at all times.”  What else did Obama have to say in the article?

Asked what he could reasonably accomplish for the gay community as president, Obama said he can ”reasonably see” repeal of the ”don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as well as signing legislation to ban workplace discrimination against gays. He said he’d like transgendered people to be covered by the law, but thinks it would be tough to get such legislation through Congress.

Obama also said he’s interested in ensuring that same-sex couples in civil unions get federal benefits.

Having served with gays and lesbians in my time on active duty military, and while deployed to Iraq, I can say that any one of those troops lost from the unit over the matter of their personal lives would have been detrimental to the mission, and a true shame.  And having reported here in the past about the loss of the many specialty jobs in the military like Obama spoke of (arabic translators) I think the time is long past due to scrap the whole “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and as a whole see the military, hell- the country, move beyond this pettiness and view people based on their worth and qualities more than we worry about who they’re sharing a bed with.  If Obama can get that done as President, then more power to him. 

Popularity: 4% [?]

Nope, it’s more “stay the course” and “wait and see” from the man leading the way in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus.

So what exactly is going to happen in Iraq?

(Petraeus) was careful to emphasize that any withdrawals — after a recommended 45-day halt this summer — would be based on security conditions at the time, Petraeus’ acknowledgment went slightly further than his stubborn refusal Tuesday to discuss the level of U.S. troops after the July pause.

“I can foresee a reduction beyond the 15 [brigades], yes, sir,” Petraeus said, referring to the number of military units that will remain in Iraq once the surge ends in July. “We have a number of months and a number of substantial actions to take before then, but we are already identifying areas that we think are likely candidates for that.”

Of course that left some in the House Armed Services Committee with grave concerns.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee’s chairman, said U.S. military and intelligence leaders have argued any future terrorist attack is likely to come from Al Qaeda operatives based in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“When looking at the needs in Afghanistan, the effort in Iraq, however important, is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us,” Skelton said.

So with the count of troops in Iraq not unlikely to remain the same through to the elections in November, what does this mean for the Cadidates?

For the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has tethered his political fate to the war, the freeze could hurt or help him, said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.

The U.S. military role in Iraq “will constantly remind voters about a Republican problem that is unpopular, controversial and seen as a policy failure,” Zelizer said. At the same time, Democrats shouldn’t assume the war issue will break their way.

“Americans often support hawks or military figures to get the nation out of messy wars,” he said, citing Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War in 1953, and Richard Nixon, who brought most U.S. forces home from Vietnam 20 years later.

Obama, Clinton

McCain and the two Democratic presidential candidates — Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York — addressed Iraq yesterday as Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before two Senate committees.

Clinton, 60, said it was time to begin an “orderly process” of withdrawal. Obama said setting a timetable for a pullout would force Iraqi leaders to resolve sectarian disputes.

The Democratic rivals are responding to weak public support for the Iraq war. Sixty percent of all Americans favor setting a timetable for removing U.S. forces, while 35 percent support keeping a significant number of troops there until the situation improves, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken Feb. 21 through Feb. 24.

McCain, 71, reiterated his view that the U.S. troop buildup ordered by Bush last year has been a success and that a premature American withdrawal would be “reckless and irresponsible.”

No `Abyss’

“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” McCain said.

At the same time, McCain sought to refute Democratic criticisms that he supported an unlimited U.S. commitment and was overly optimistic about the course of the conflict.

McCain said his goal was “an Iraq that no longer needs American troops.” And he elicited testimony from Petraeus that was critical of the performance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki and Iraqi security forces in fighting against Shiite militias in Basra.

Clinton, like McCain a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also used her moment in the spotlight to counter critics of her position on Iraq — in this case, McCain and his assertion that those supporting withdrawal were irresponsible.

“It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost,” Clinton said.

The administration and its supporters “often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy,” she said.

`Strategic Blunder’

Obama, 46, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a “massive strategic blunder.”

“Our military is overstretched and the Pentagon has acknowledged it,” he said. “When you have finite resources, you’ve got to define your goals tightly and modestly.”

One way or the other, with the economy recently being the focal point of election debate leaving all other issues as footnotes, Iraq is likely to get a fair amount of press in the near future.

Popularity: 3% [?]

*“if the highest Shi’ite religious authority demand it”.

It was the first time Sadr has offered to dissolve the Mehdi Army militia, whose black-masked fighters have been principle actors throughout Iraq’s five-year-old war and the main foes of U.S. and Iraqi forces in widespread battles over recent weeks.

The news came on the day Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who launched a crackdown on the militia late last month, ordered the Mehdi Army to disband or Sadr’s followers would be excluded from Iraqi political life.

Senior Sadr aide Hassan Zargani said Sadr would seek rulings from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shi’ite cleric, as well as senior Shi’ite clergy based in Iran, on whether to dissolve the Mehdi Army, and would obey their orders.

“If they order the Mehdi Army to disband, Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr movement will obey the orders of the religious leaders,” Zargani told Reuters from neighboring Iran, where U.S. officials say Sadr has spent most of the past year.

That puts the spotlight on the reclusive Sistani, 77, a cleric revered by all of Iraq’s Shi’ite factions and whose edicts carry the force of Islamic law.

Sistani, who almost never leaves his house in Najaf, has intervened in Iraqi politics only a handful of times but on each occasion his rulings have been decisive.

It speaks volumes for the state of things in Iraq and our considerable poor estimations and cultural misunderstandings that a feat we (including U.S. backed Iraq Prez Nuri Kamal al-Maliki) have been trying to accomplish for years could come to pass on the words of a reclusive cleric living in Iran- a country that our government has no love lost for.

The fighting in Basra and Baghdad has brought Iraq back into the headlines after a long stretch of relative calm following the surge strategy that was put in place as well as a cease-fire called for by Moqtada al-Sadr last year.  With General Petraeus set to report to Washington again in the next few days, including face time with Presidential hopefuls Clinton, Obama, and McCain, it remains to be seen how the recent events will influence talks of withdrawing troops from Iraq, not to mention dialogue about the overall future of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Popularity: 3% [?]

As reported earlier, the Mahdi army had been facing off against the Iraqi government and army in the city of Basra after the gov’t ordered the Shiite militia lay down their arms and staged a siege on the city. 
Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, founder of the Mahdi army, on Sunday ordered the militia to cease fire, and submitted a list of demands to the gov’t. 

The substance of Mr. Sadr’s statement, released Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the discussions.

Still, though fighting was reported to have died down by late afternoon in Basra, it continued in Baghdad, including heavy combat by Iraqi and American troops and aircraft in the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, casting uncertainty on the deal.

The negotiations with Mr. Sadr were seen as a serious blow for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who had vowed that he would see the Basra campaign through to a military victory and who has been harshly criticized even within his own coalition for the stalled assault.

Last week, Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Kadir al-Obeidi, conceded that the government’s military efforts in Basra have met with far more resistance than was expected. Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.

And it was a chance for Mr. Sadr to flaunt his power, commanding both armed force and political strength that can forcefully challenge the other dominant Shiite parties, including Mr. Maliki’s Dawa movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. In the statement, Mr. Sadr told militia members “to end all military actions in Basra and in all the provinces” and “to cooperate with the government to achieve security.”

But Mr. Sadr also demanded concessions, including that the government grant a general amnesty for his followers, release all imprisoned members of the Sadrist movement who have not been convicted of crimes and bring back “the displaced people who have fled their homes as a result of military operations.”

It was not clear if the government was willing to meet those demands.

Mr. Sadr’s willingness to negotiate represents a significant shift from his stance in 2004, when he ordered his militia to fight to the death in the holy city of Najaf, and suggests that his political sophistication and strategic skills have grown in the last two years.

In response to all of the action in Basra and Baghdad American military forces have been launching airstrikes on strategic locations in neighborhoods, as well as sending armored vehicles on patrol.  According to unofficial reports around 500 have been killed or injured as a result of the violence.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Mahdi army militiamen are currently engaging Iraqi army and Iraqi government forces with greater frequency and intensity as of this week, as the government sent their troops in to wrest control of the city of Basra from the Shiite militia founded by Moktada al-Sadr.

Moktada al-Sadr is the Shiite cleric who called for the ceasefire last year that has helped in conjuncture with “the surge” to hold violence in Iraq to a lower level in recent memory.

Senior members of several political parties said Saturday that the operation, ordered by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, had been poorly planned. The growing discontent adds a new level of complication to the American-led effort to demonstrate that the Iraqi government had made strides toward being able to operate a functioning country and keep the peace without thousands of American troops.

Since the Basra assault began Tuesday, violence has spread to Shiite districts of Baghdad and other places in Iraq where Shiite militiamen hold sway, raising fears that security gains often attributed to a yearlong American troop buildup could be at risk. Any widespread breakdown of a cease-fire called by Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who founded the Mahdi Army, could bring the country right back to the sectarian violence that racked it in 2006 and 2007.

There are many things that must be considered in regards to this series of events:

-How this affects the locals, many of whom already distrust the leadership of the current Prime Minister
-How this affects our military, troop actions, and withdrawls or increased numbers of troops
-And how this could influence the Presidential elections in regards to what candidates say they might or might not do to handle these kinds of situations in Iraq should they continue.

We’ll be sure to stay abreast of the situation, and report more as it plays out.

Popularity: 3% [?]