I really don’t see what other options the military has here:

Sarah Palin kicked off her book tour in Michigan this week, and thousands gathered outside a Barnes & Noble chanting her name, giving the event the feel of a political pep rally. The Army wants Palin’s appearance at Fort Bragg on Monday to be much quieter.

The base has asked Palin not to make a speech at a public book-signing at the base exchange; she also will not write personal notes, pose for photographs or sign anything besides her new memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

Fort Bragg also wanted to bar reporters from the event. Garrison Commander Col. Stephen J. Sicinski determined that by keeping out the media, the base would prevent Palin, a Republican and possible candidate in 2012, from having a platform from which to attack President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

“Fort Bragg, nor any other Army installation, cannot be used or appear to be used as endorsing criticism of the commander in chief,” said base spokesman Thomas D. McCollum. “Because this book signing is turning into a political platform with the addition of media coverage, we are restricting the media coverage.”

They really don’t have much choice in this matter.

I’m still following the CNN story about the Killings at the Canals, and this piece today about the soldier who finally broke silence and reported the murders, Jess Cunningham, included this charming tidbit:

Based on Cunningham’s information, the Army launched an investigation in January 2008.

Asked why he did not report the crime earlier, Cunningham said, “Retaliation. Fear of being alone, fear of being the only one that had a problem with it, fear of so many things that could have happened to me.”

Cunningham was among 13 soldiers at the canal. He and another sergeant were charged with conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, but the charges were dropped. Cunningham received immunity for testifying.

David Court, who is Hatley’s attorney, said Cunningham “did not come forward for any altruistic motive. He only mentioned this because he thought it would get him less punishment. He didn’t do it because he thought, ‘I’ve got to blow the whistle.’ “

Court said, “If I were Sgt. Cunningham, I’d be worried that, having broken the band of brothers, something might happen to me.”

Cunningham said that is exactly why he did not come forward earlier.

How is that not intimidating a witness? How is that legal? And maybe people unfamiliar with the military don’t get it, but for those of you who do, can you not see right away the sort of cult-like following that Hatley had in that unit? We’ve all seen this dynamic. The more I read about this company, the more dysfunctional it sounds.

You know, going back to the Beauchamp story, you have to remember just how crazy this time period was for everyone. The wingnut narrative was in danger, and they just had to destroy Beauchamp for basically telling what everyone who has ever spent a day in uniform knows- all our troops are not angels, and some bad shit sometimes goes down. We had folks screaming for his own troops to “take care of him,” people wanting him court-martialed, and so on, and they went to extreme lengths to have the young man destroyed- while he was in theatre avoiding bullets and serving his country.

Just to remember how crazy the wingnut reaction was to the possibility that not all our troops are angels (and thereby threatening the war narrative and taking away the media as an excuse for everything going wrong in the war), you have appreciate this classic post at the Power Line, where reader Stuart Koehl “proved” that a track vehicle could not run over a dog by eyeballing a 1/32 scale model of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. As Tbogg noted in one of the all time classic blog posts, “The role of the dog was played by a 3-inch My Little Pony named Princess Sparkle Snowflake Rainbow. Next up: Warren Commission report disproved using a Hot Wheels Terrordactyl Track.”

As to Stuart Koehl, what happened to him? Well rest assured, “expertise” like that is highly valued in wingnut circles, and he was rewarded with a guest appearance at none other than the Weekly Standard just a few months later:

There is a lot about Obama’s story that makes no sense. Let us start with the opening line:

“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon—supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.”

Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been “sent to Iraq.” Sorry, the Army doesn’t work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can’t break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics.

You remember how this worked out, don’t you? Jake Tapper, in one of his best moments from last year, ended the wingnut screeches once and for all:

I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information.

Short answer: He backs up Obama’s story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain—then a Lieutenant—took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but—in ones and twos—15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

Jake then goes on to verify every claim Obama made.

So when you think back to this time period, remember what we were dealing with and the quality of “evidence” that the usual suspects on the right latched on to to defend their own personal fantasies. The second anecdote in this post is extremely relevant, as these jackasses have now spent the last few months accusing Obama of “dithering” in regards to Afghanistan.

Just wrong about everything, which is, of course, why David Gregory will have McCain on again soon.

I’m going to keep repeating it until someone notices. CNN’s current series Killing at the Canals, which focuses on the investigation and conviction of the Army NCOs who murdered detainees execution style and dumped their bodies into canals, is about the First Sergeant who commanded Scott Beauchamp. His name is First Sergeant John Hatley, and he wrote the following letter to outside sources trashing Beauchamp, a soldier in his command:

My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.

Sincerely,

1SG Hatley

1SG Hatley and the other NCOs executed these men in March of 2007. Scott Beauchamp wrote Shock Troops in July 2007. Hatley wrote this letter after July of 2007, insisting that Beauchamp was disturbed because he wrote about making fun of someone in a cafeteria or running over a dog. He wrote that letter attacking Beauchamp, knowing that just a few weeks earlier, he and others had taken it upon themselves to put a gun to the back of several detainee’s heads, pull the trigger, and dump their bodies into a canal.

But they would have you believe that no one in their unit would run over a dog.

Or play with bones.

By the way, Scott Beauchamp is still in uniform serving his country honorably. None of the wingnuts who freaked out about him at the Weekly Standard or elsewhere have gotten around to enlisting.

*** Update ***

God, watching the CNN show tonight was just gut-wrenching. They didn’t just murder four men, they also have put their wives and loved ones through sheer hell. No matter what these men did, you have to feel bad for their families.

Not sure if you all caught it last night or not, but AC360 is running a series on the murder of detainees by several NCO’s that resulted in long convictions for the men (as it should). Unmentioned is that the First Sergeant who was convicted, John Hatley, was Scott Beauchamp’s NCO. CNN has never made the connection, apparently.

Those are the men who would never run over a dog.

Some good info from Jake Tapper:

In Wednesday’s meeting, Pentagon officials presented more details about four strategies—two from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and two others—but President Obama was not satisfied with their assessments.

Specicially, he pushed the generals to clarify how and when U.S. troops would be able to turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.

“The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government,” an administration official said, adding that the President “wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner.”

I’m sure this will be met in greater Wingnuttia with abject horror, as they all have their marching orders from the Cheneys and will need to pursue the “dithering” story line no matter what. In fact, a quick perusal find that Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive is very close to soiling his camouflaged knickers:

If this is true then just about all the worst fears we had about Obama as Commander in Chief are coming true.

Meanwhile, Colonel Mustard, with his years of military and geopolitical training, offers up his sage advice:

Will someone tell our President this is not a term paper. You don’t get to move the paragraphs around, tweak the punctuation, and cut and paste until it reads just right.

I’m sure there is more, but why bother digging it all up? And while the usual suspects are all getting the vapors, it is probably worth remembering that the conservative position, back when there were actual conservatives, and not just reactionary loudmouths and know-nothing war-mongering idiots, was to weigh all the options before making momentous and important decisions. We even used to call it the “Powell Doctrine”:

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Funny that. Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell, both of whom served under St. Ronald of Reagan, the man who single-handedly beat the Soviets. Now granted, the Powell Doctrine was there because some folks in the Pentagon and in the National Security apparatus actually learned some lessons from Viet Nam, and tried to avoid making that same mistake again. In fact, as Jake Tapper notes, someone with more brains than the 101st Chairborne is urging Obama to take his time:

“This is a very difficult one for him,” Powell said. “And it isn’t just a one-time decision. This is the decision that will have consequences for the better part of his administration. So Mr. President, don’t get pushed by the left to do nothing; don’t get pushed by the right to do everything. You take your time and you figure it out. You’re the commander-in-chief and this is what you were elected for.”

Powell said he had “advised him is to not be rushed into a decision because this one is the decision that will have consequences for years to come.”

The fact that Obama is concerned with details like timelines and a schedule for handing over control makes me feel about as positive as I have regarding the Afghan dilemma in a long, long time.

This will put a smile on your face- a bunch of videos of dogs greeting their returning veterans. A sample:

Somewhat related, a USA Today piece on the decline of the VFW and American Legion.

Happy veteran’s Day!

Will be interesting to see if Obama folds on this:

The nation’s top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget.

The financing would be on top of the $130 billion that Congress authorized for the wars just last month.

Personally, I think it would be supremely irresponsible to act on this legislation without seeing the CBO score. I’m hoping Max Baucus and the blue dogs will get on that, because I’d like to know how this legislation will pay for itself. I suggest we put this off a few months to talk about the costs and how we are robbing future generations.

Oh, wait. This is for the military. Never mind.

The Republicans have them:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians.

Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was “an abuse of power” by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did.

In other words, they hate gays more than they love the troops, and you know how much they say they love the troops.

You all really need to watch the HBO documentary Outrage.

Not sure if you have paid attention, but a remote outpost in Afghanistan was assaulted this weekend by Taliban forces, and they breached the perimeter and killed a bunch of our guys. This write-up at CNN sounds like something out of Platoon or We Were Soldiers Once and Young:

The battle Saturday in which eight U.S. troops were killed was so fierce that, at one point, U.S. forces had to fall back as attackers breached the perimeter of their base, a U.S. military official with knowledge of the latest intelligence reports on the incident said.

***

The United States now believes that about 200 insurgents—mostly local fighters, with some Taliban organizers and leaders—had been planning the attack for days, hiding mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns in the mountains. Sources said the Taliban may have been watching the troops make preparations to depart and launched their attack at a time of vulnerability.

The Taliban were able to use their higher positions to fire into the base, pinning down the troops. As the attack progressed, the troops were forced back when enemy fighters managed to breach the outer perimeter of the outpost, the source said.

The story itself is disturbing enough, but then in the comments here there is a link to this website, soliciting donations to replace the… SOCKS AND BALACLAVAS for these guys.

You have got to be shitting me. What exactly is going on in this damned country? This can not be for real. We have two damned wars running, spend over a half a trillion annually on defense, and that is before the supplemental bills for hundreds of billions every year, and we need to pass the fucking hat to buy our troops socks? Seriously. What is going on? I’m seriously about to blow a damned gasket. I bet the lads working for Xe/Blackwater don’t need donations for socks.

Christ on a crutch. This country is just completely screwed. Please tell me this is a hoax or a misunderstanding and our soldiers aren’t relying on donations so they don’t freeze to death in Afghanistan.

Cute:

The National Republican Congressional Committee is urging Gen. Stanley McCrystal to put House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “in her place” for weighing in on Afghanistan—prompting one female Pelosi ally to blast the House GOP as “80 percent male,” “100 percent white”—and completely out of touch.

On Monday night, Pelosi told Charlie Rose “should go up the line of command” instead of publicly opining on strategy—prompting a swift, sneering reaction from the GOP committee.

Mocking the first female speaker as “General Pelosi,” an NRCC spokesman wrote, “If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McCrystal is able to put her in her place.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who is close to Pelosi, could barely contain her anger.

“I think the place for a woman is at the top of the House of Representatives,” said Wasserman Schultz.

Pelosi is, of course, 100% correct. I kind of happen to think that McCrystal was kind of screwed anyway you looked at it when he was in London, because his report had been leaked and people knew what he thought already- he had no choice but to answer the way he did to that question. On the larger point, though, Pelosi is completely correct. He should be going through the chain of command with his opinions and plans. No one who has ever spent more than a few hours in the military would dispute this.

A little know fact about Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial complex speech:

In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government.

And then you have this:

Going after ACORN may be like shooting fish in a barrel lately—but jumpy lawmakers used a bazooka to do it last week and may have blown up some of their longtime allies in the process.

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to “any organization” that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

Can a brother get a “Heh-Indeedy?”

An enterprising journalist might look at this:

And after sampling the right-wing reactions, do a comparison to the reactions from those same people when Eric Shinseki correctly estimated we would need more troops in Iraq. I bet the results would be illuminating. He probably just had a book to sell.

Now, of course, this assessment from McChrystal will be the word of God and portrayed as “forcing” Obama’s hand.

I’m sure this will surprise no one:

Cut the man some slack. He’s passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!

Except that he’s not─at least not when it comes to his, and his family’s, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one’s commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.

Yes, it’s true. As politicos and town-hall criers debate the finer points of the public option, employer mandates, coverage for undocumented immigrants, and who’s more Hitler-like, they seem to miss a larger point: the United States has single-payer health care. It covers 9.5 million active-duty servicemen and women, military retirees, and their dependents─including almost a 10th of all Californians and Floridians, and nearly a quarter of a million residents of Wilson’s home state.

It just never stops.

A long-term acquaintance on a small group mailing list chose this week to move from a steady drip of more-or-less-ignorable libertarian/objectivist statements into Full Frontal Wingnut.  After circulating a long, badly-written, tediously unfunny “humorous letter” about the Self-Proclaimed So cia list President Obama’s Nazi-Inspired Campaign to Trick Innocent Americans Into “Flagging” Their Neighbors for Thought Crimes Against IRS Death Squads of the So-Called-Health-Reform Task Force to Destroy the World’s Best Medical System, they were rebutted with great patience  by fellow members from all points of the political spectrum.   Amidst the ensuing squid-cloud of butthurt, rules-lawyering, and accusations of bad faith, Acquaintance announced that they get all their news from four “smart, unbiased” online sources:  Instapundit, Google, and two “trustworthy” milblogs, Winds of Change and Blackfive.

I know nothing of military blogs or bloggers, but I suspect that if Glenn Reynolds is the measure of  smart & trustworthy, then these two may bear the same relationship to military news as Icanhascheezburger bears to veterinary science.  Can the better read among you, especially the veterans, provide some recommendations for sane milblogs that won’t be too frightening to someone with a bad case of Starship Troopers Syndrome?