I hate this ad.

It's only 31 seconds long and has a simple message, but it makes me cry. It hurts, seeing political divisions hurt our country like this. It hurts because I should still be in the Army, but I left it. It hurts because while I'm too much of a chauvanist to want my daughter to serve, I'm hoping next February brings a son who will serve- and I don't want his service (or his life, for that matter) to be wasted. Especially not in the same war that my service was wasted in. I was in OIF2 and the last thing I want to see is my son sweating out OIF26. And OIF28. And OIF30 and OIF32, and as many more as stop-loss brings him to, which will probably be several. If we stay the course too much longer, civilians who happen to walk past recruiting offices are going to get stop-lossed.

This ad covers a lot of ground, with just a few simple, loving words.

The Senators wake up.

It's been painfully obvious since the Abu Ghraib 2003 yearbook came out that the idiots in the pictures weren't working alone. Yes, their behavior was disgraceful and wrong, but it pales in comparison to the behavior of their superiors- commissioned, appointed and elected. Even the early news stories about it in 2004 mentioned General Miller and his input, but it's taken another four years for anyone to notice- and that asshole is collecting a pension.

Well, it turns out the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to show up for work today. La-di-fucking-da. This hearing is more than four years too late, and directing any intelligent thought at all to Iraq comes six years too late. Where I come from, AWOL becomes desertion after 30 days.

It's easy to point out that the Democrats weren't in control back then, but that's irrelevant. This issue isn't about what party you belong to, it's about being an American. The complete lack of legislative oversight here is simply disgusting and they were all complicit in what was done, party or no party. The nicest thing I can say about the Republicans is that they're all a bunch of spineless yes men, and the nicest thing I can say about the Democrats is that they're all a bunch of ball-less whiners. We've got an Army that's falling apart, we've got men and women dying (not to mention all the Iraqi deaths on our hands), and Congress is more concerned with Robert's Rules of Order than anything else. They voted for the war and they've been falling all over themselves to borrow Chinese money to fund it, but they've never bothered to look at what we're actually doing.

So- our Executive branch elected types need to be impeached and our Executive branch appointed types need to go to jail. Our General Officers need to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged. The retired ones need to be recalled to active duty for the same treatment. Our Legislative branch types need to be replaced. We ditched a bunch of them in 2006, but they haven't exactly been doing a stellar job since then- making meaningless statements and then folding to avoid being accused of "not supporting our troops." The Legislative [edit- Judicial] hasn't been doing too badly this month- barely, by a slim 5-4 margin. I'll be looking at that after I've finished reading their opinions.

What's lost in this is that abuse and torture is now recognized as being official United States government policy. The United States, if I recall correctly, was founded on the belief "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted..." The founding of the country is one thing, but the government itself is based on principles like "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" and "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I maintain that when the leaders of the government deliberately and systematically refuse to obey the rules that constitute that government, then they are not acting as government officials, but as criminals operating under the color of authority.

I would like to end with more of the document that established the United States:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown...

British Crown? I was expecting it to say "Bush administration." We've got to do something about these people. It's sad that the Democratic Party is the closest thing we have to an answer.

Dick Cheney truly understood Iraq. Seriously.

People have called Dick Cheney a lot of things, but he is not a stupid man. In fact, he has shown more true insight into the U.S. military involvement with Iraq than any other member of the Bush administration. I'm serious. Unfortunately, it was during the other Bush administration.

On the invading of Iraq:

"Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no." One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Man, those were the days, weren't they? Back when Dick Cheney recognized that the military could handle military missions, i.e. breaking stuff, and not much else. That was back when Dick Cheney understood that Iraq was "inherently unstable" and that the strongman would have to be replaced by one of the factions and we would have to be that "weakman's" muscle to make him strong enough to hold power. That was back when he understood that we would have to take casualties to keep the puppet regime in power and that that regime wouldn't be secure after we left. That was before he ran Halliburton and later decided to tell America that "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

He even addressed the nuts and bolts of invading Iraq:

"I am personally persuaded that there are thousands of Americans home with their families today, and more on the way home who would not be coming home at all, if it hadn't been for the President's decision to double the force when he did last November to make certain that we could prevail in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost.

One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary."

Here, Cheney is showing that Donald Rumsfeld was woefully incapable of filling his shoes as Secretary of Defense. Cheney in 1990 knew that an overwhelming force was worth building up because it would insure success while minimizing losses. Rumsfeld wasn't as astute, with his "Surely 125,000 would suffice."

Dick Cheney's 1991 assessment of our military operations against Iraq appear especially ironic when looked at after our 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 operations against Iraq, which he himself sold to the country as a war that would last "weeks rather than months."

In light of the disastrous war and occupation that he helped sell the country, in light of the breakdown of recruiting and retention that the military is suffering, Cheney's closing remarks are especially telling:

"I think the friends of the United States, not only in the Middle East but around the world, can look to the United States with renewed confidence that we have not only the capacity to protect our friends and observe our commitments, but we have the will to protect our friends and keep our commitments. And that, too, is a very significant development."

Exploring the Oath of Enlistment

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

There are three parts to the Oath. In the first, you swear to defend the Constitution. In the second, you swear allegiance to it. In the third you swear to participate in the military according to regulations and the UCMJ. Looking at these three parts from back to front, the obedience part is irrelevant. UCMJ applies where it applies and doesn't where it doesn't. The military has its own mechanisms for enforcing its laws and regulations- you don't have to take an oath to be bound by and under the control of those mechanisms. Placing that part in the Oath is more a strong way of showing recruits an important part of the commitment they are making. Seriously- is a soldier under arrest and facing a court-martial honorably fulfilling his Oath by submitting to that? Can he get out of it by simply renouncing his Oath? It makes no sense. As to discharged veterans and, in most circumstances, Reserve Component members, UCMJ doesn't even apply to them (see Article 2). If allowing it to continue not applying to them counts as constantly fulfilling their Oath, then good for them.

The second part, swearing allegiance to the Constitution, is slightly less dumb. Citizens simply owe allegiance to their country, and the United States, as a nation, is an artificial construction. It was created by the Declaration of Independence and is defined by the Constitution. Allegiance to the U.S. is allegiance to the Constitution, plain and simple. Civilians who have never taken this oath can be convicted of treason because of that allegiance. For citizens joining the military, this part is again just a reminder of what they're doing. For non-citizens who enlist, it is a critical requirement to bring them to the same level of obligation to the Constitution that citizens have.

The first part of the Oath is the most important, the only one that isn't already taken care of by other means (at least for citizens). It's important enough to look at again:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

The rest of the Oath is simply restating the obvious, but this is its heart- to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies. This part of the Oath is the crux of the argument about serving or betraying the country.

IVAW members in general are regularly accused of treason because of differing opinions of just what it means to "support and defend the Constitution." Apparently, lots of people seem to think it involves everyone blindly adhering to the directives of the Bush administration, a group of people who only violate the Constitution on days that end in "y." That just doesn't make any sense to me. Look at the main problem, at least when calling IVAW members traitors: Iraq. Does opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq signal a refusal to defend the Constitution? Not at all. Iraq was never a threat to us, but invading and occupying Iraq has made us weaker for no good reason. Again, for no good reason. If there were a good reason, then this whole mess would have legitimacy and opposition to it would be crippled. Without a good reason, it's bad for the country. To defend the country, we have to oppose the war.

I love this plate.

It was an occupying force that killed Christ.

It's been six weeks since Easter, but I've been wanting to share the perspective of the sermon I heard. We all know the story of Jesus: how God came to live as a man in the world He created. My minister decided to describe Christ's life in today's terms. It doesn't make us (as Americans) look good. For those of us that are Christians, it makes us look even worse.

God didn't simply come down to Earth, He came to Earth in a country that was occupied by the most powerful and dominant political system of the time. As we all know, he came to us as the occupied, not as the occupier.

The point of the sermon was that God takes sides (duh). With Christ's resurrection, God took the side of the occupied. With the resurrection, God denied victory to the imperial bullies and the corrupt local officials that conspired with them. Their cruel and humiliating tactics killed the rabbi who had no earthly powers, but then God said no. He took away their victory over the powerless, the occupied. God sided against the occupiers, saying no to power combined with cruelty.

As a former occupier myself, this wasn't the joyous Easter Sermon that I was looking forward to. A week after Winter Soldier, it was really the last thing I needed to hear. As a former imperial bully, I needed it even less.

I had been a simple, honest soldier. 11H- Heavy Antiarmor Weapons Infantryman. I loved almost every minute of it. I loved it enough that after my unit got shut down as a part of the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War, I ended up looking for a new home. I wound up as a 13B Cannon Crewmember. I adored every minute of that.

All that simple, honest soldiering came to an end when I got to Iraq. I was there In Lieu Of military police, which ordinarily wouldn't have been so bad. Patrolling and escorting convoys is just fine; they're ordinary tasks. No, those jobs weren't the problem- being a prison guard was. I stopped being a soldier and started being an occupier. A true imperial bully. That was when I stopped being a professional soldier, too. The only training I got was how to wear a brassard and the pictures in the news showing how the "real MPs" treated detainees up at Abu Ghraib. The pieces of shit running the 16th MP Bde (the only airborne MP brigade in the world) had the nerve to tell us that if there was a problem in the IF and we had to fall back on our training and experience as combat soldiers, we would go to jail. For mistreating the detainees. This from the MPs down from Abu Ghraib.

I wasn't a trained professional any more. In lieu of training, my chain of command gave me threats of jail. I was a thug, literally armed with a club and making up rules as I saw fit. Just because I never killed any of them doesn't make it less bad. Just because I never beat, robbed or raped any of them doesn't make it any less bad. It was the highlight of my Army career, and I wasn't the simple, honest professional soldier that I had been for the previous twelve years. I was just an imperial bully. I was professionally and morally the equal of the men who killed Christ. Those men didn't know that they were killing the son of God, they were just thugs in an occupying army doing their jobs as oppressors- just like me. Everyone that trained me, that I looked up to when I was a young private, taught me better than that. Everyone that trained me, that I looked up to when I was a young NCO, taught me better than that.

Everything I was, everything I stood for, everything that I swore in my oath of enlistment- it was all betrayed by the way that my unit was used. We did nothing to defend the Constitution of the United States. All we did was oppress Iraqis. Oh, and if we were Christian, we betrayed our faith and our God, too.

It wasn't a good Easter for me.

A family member just joined VFF.

Much to my disappointment, a family member joined Veterans For Freedom recently. Now, I don't dislike them; I just disagree with them. I have problems with people who "support the mission" in Iraq because just like the lies legitimate, real reasons for the invasion, the mission over there is so muddled that you can't exactly pin it down. What, exactly, are you supporting when you "support the mission?" I don't know, either, but VFF is pretty solidly behind it.

This family member isn't a veteran. Veterans For Freedom doesn't care. Their web site says that they are "the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America." That's impressive until you check out the membership signup page and see "Non veterans can also be members of Vets for Freedom." It turns out that they accept four different types of members: Iraq/Afghanistan vets, Family members of Iraq/Afghanistan vets and veterans from other conflicts. What's the fourth category? "A patriotic American who suports the US mission in Iraq or Afghanistan."

That's my family member, right there in that last group. He's never served and wouldn't last a day in the military. He's fit enough, but he sucks at obeying commands. He just kind of coasts through life doing whatever the hell he feels like doing and won't make anything of himself. I don't judge him harshly for it, though, because it's just his nature. He's only four years old, which explains a lot. Oh, and he's a Yellow Lab, too, which explains even more. That's right- "the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America" got that way because dogs can join.

I said I was disappointed, but I understand where he's coming from. I've heard the argument that we have to fight them over there to ensure freedom back here. I always thought that was a crock of shit until I realized exactly how true it was for my dog. When I got home from Iraq I arranged for this little guy to be released from his illegal detention at the hands of the Humne Society. It only makes sense that he'd want us to keep sending soldiers over there until every last dog in this country is adopted. He's still upset with me for getting out of the Army when I was only 32- he figures that I still had a few tours left in me and would have rescued that many more dogs. I can even understand why he's in favor of imposing western values on the Iraqi people: he's heard how they feel about dogs and he's not pleased.

My dog's patriotism can't be questioned- he shows his love for our country as enthusiastically as only a Lab can (his favorite parts tend to be lakes). So there's my Lab: "A patriotic American who suports the US mission in Iraq or Afghanistan," and member, Veterans For Freedom. Unfortuantely, he's horribly disillusioned. Depressed. A sick puppy, if you will. After VFF emailed him his password to their website (I had to set up an email address for him) I logged him in to his "personal Action Center." They only wanted three things from him: money, recruiting his friends to join VFF, and giving them all the email addresses he knows. Now there's a group to be proud of being in. They value their members like... a spammer values the addresses he finds on the web. My poor dog is screwed; he's got no money, none of his friends hate Iraqis and he doesn't know anyone else's email address. Veterans For Freedom has no use for this young, strong, clear headed, right-thinking, loyal, strong swimming American male.

On a related note, a few days ago I told some people online that my dog had joined Veterans For Freedom. Last night I let my dogs out into the yard, then I ran over to my computer and logged in to my Lab's account. I wanted to cut and paste a quote or two. After a couple attempts I realized that there was a problem. Veterans For Freedom had deleted my dog.

That was actually a surprise to me: Veterans For Freedom hates puppies. I knew they were a bit off kilter, being in favor of this stupid war and all. As if this undefined "mission" existed in some sort of reality or something. As if this war had an organized enemy that we could target. Or there were a goal or something- other than profits for Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. As if our dead had died for something that had any bearing on their Oath Of Enlistment. Even so, I never suspected that they hated puppies.

I still don't know how I'm going to tell my dog that Veterans For Freedom not only has no use for him, but they hate him and deleted his membership without even bothering to tell him. I got him a gmail address and now I have to figure out how to delete it. That'll be easy compared to telling a Labrador Retriever that 13,000 people who happen to know Iraq or Afghanistan veterans (or people who are patriotic and happen to feel somewhat affected by the occupation) hate him.

Veterans For Freedom Hates puppies. Do you know how hard it is to depress a Labrador Retriever? Those guys have managed to pull it off.

Reflecting at Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier was a painful week for me. Now, I've never been ashamed of anything that I did in Iraq. I wasn't happy with some of it, but I wasn't ashamed of it; I did the best that I could in the situations that I got dropped into. There are times that I still feel dirty about, but occupying a country is a dirty job and a lot of times there's no good way to do it. I spent a lot of time thinking about those things when I was in Iraq, but generally it was kind of an AAR because those kooky Iraqis came up with some really odd ways of behaving. You couldn't predict much.

An AAR is a very focused way of looking back and it's great for helping you prepare to deal with similar situations in the future. But it's not reflecting. I never actually looked at what I had done through anything but the narrow lens of a soldier in an occupied land and an NCO with a mission to perform and soldiers' lives at stake. Then I went to Winter Soldier.

Three years after I got home and settled back into civilian life, I finally looked at my time in Iraq from a perspective that didn't have to get out there tomorrow to do it all over again. I was sitting in the hearing room watching other veterans tell their stories of pain, for the first time feeling my own. I don't regret anything I did, but that doesn't mean that it was good.

I was an emotional wreck while I was at Winter Soldier and for a couple of days afterward. I drank way too much and cried a lot. Sure it hurt, but it was a good hurt and it was something that I didn't even know that I needed to do. I just wonder if it would have been easier if I had gone through it a few years ago.

It's a great system the military's got for mental health- nobody needs to sit down and talk with somebody about what they've seen and done unless they check off "I'm going to kill myself and/or my wife" on a questionnaire as part of redeployment. Of course, from what I read they aren't going to actually get any treatment even if they do check it off. But everyone supports the troops, right?

Iraq: An Occupation Is Forever.

The Iraq Fifth Anniversary Pendant.
Tell her you'd invade all over again.

So now my cousin is over there.

This is pathetic. Four years ago I was in Iraq. Three years ago I was home and cheerfully awaiting my ETS. Two years ago I was a civilian- and my kid cousin graduated from West Point. A year ago he was doing junior officer training crap. This week, as an infantry platoon leader he got to Kuwait. He'll be in Iraq later this month.

What gets me is that nothing's really different in Iraq for my cousin's (first?) deployment than it was during mine. Sure, we had brown camouflage- and green, for that matter, while they have those ACUs now. We had bolt-on armor kits for our rickety humvees and today they have strykers and MRAPs. The Mahdi Army was a declared hostile force when I was there, and we're only "supporting" grossly ineffective Iraqi operations against them today.

I've been home for three years and nothing's any different. Now I've got to wait to hear that my cousin got blown up- on the same roads that I sweated IEDs on. Man, this sucks.