A bit of a firestorm has erupted in the veterans community over a rather vicious blog attack against Sen. Barack Obama by the blog No Quarter. (It apparently also ran on DailyKos) The attack criticizes Sen. Obama's voting record and action record on veterans issues, and ends with something of a schoolyard taunt: "There are people who do the work. Then there are people who just talk. Screw hope. Give me the one who gets it done."

Uh huh.

This assault reminds me of a vignette from the National Training Center in the California desert, where I spent many months training and learning what it meant to perform when you're cold, wet, tired, hungry and pissed off at being in the desert. (Those lessons were very useful to me 5 years later in Iraq.) On one day, my brigade had the mission to attack into a strong enemy defensive position arrayed between two hills, and to exploit the gap if we were able to open it. My brigade commander, then-Col. Randy Anderson, got with his armor battalion commaner, then-Lt. Col. John Hadjis, and put together an audacious attack plan that aimed to throw the enemy (played by NTC's permanent OPFOR) off base through speed and violence of action.

Our scouts went out almost immediately and won the reconnaissance fight, penetrating deep into OPFOR territory and pinpointing the enemy's defensive positions. My platoon was part of this effort, conducting counterreconnaissance to kill the enemy's scouts in our territory. He who wins the recon fight often wins the battle — our eyes helped our artillery and close air support hit the OPFOR hard before the fight even started. At oh-dark-hundred on the appointed day, 3-66 Armor (Hadjis' battalion) attacked, racing their M1 tanks and M2 fighting vehicles down into the gap. They quickly broke the back of the OPFOR defensive position and moved so fast that the OPFOR had no time to regroup or move into their secondary defensive positions. Our brigade's vanguard moved 1, 5, 10 km through the gap, racing towards the OPFOR command post.

Then they slimed us. Persistent nerve gas all over the battlefield. We went from MOPP 2 to MOPP 4 and began to coordinate for decon. Game over.

What happened? In the after-action review, the NTC's senior observer-controller (known as the "COG") lauded our brigade's performance and said we performed brilliantly. The audacity, speed and synchronization of our assault threw the OPFOR into such disarray that they had no other options available but to use chemical weapons. In essence, the OPFOR's use of persistent chem against us was a sign that we had succeeded — we'd knocked them back on their heels so hard that they had to resort to (literally) dirty tricks.

War, according to Clausewitz, is the continuation of politics by other means. The converse is probably also true. War and politics share many common denominators, particularly if one steps back to look at tactics and strategy in the abstract.

The Clinton campaign's recent tactics remind me a great deal of this vignette from NTC. They are the equivalent of the OPFOR launching persistent chem at us; a sign that the Obama campaign has succeeded in seizing the initiative and knocking the Clinton campaign back onto its heels. There have been many other assaults like this. The Boston Globe reported last week that, in Iowa, Clinton's "surrogates and supporters have been increasingly busy sharpening their knives for Obama." A Huffington Post story echoed that same theme, reporting that "With the January 3 Iowa caucuses fast approaching, Hillary Clinton is now being forced to publicly disguise hardball opposition research and other bare-knuckled combat tactics." The Nation found that one of the Clinton campaign's chairs was pushing a particularly pernicious smear about Sen. Obama, and there are reports of widespread involvement by the campaign in spreading smear e-mails and other negative information about Clinton's primary opposition.

As a veteran, I support Barack Obama because of his deeds, not his words. Up front, I'll agree that he's been absent from Washington and on the campaign trail for a significant part of the last few months. That's no surprise. However, it'd be wrong to leap from that observation to concldue that Sen. Obama has not fought hard for America's veterans. During his time in Washington, and before in the Illinois state legislature, Obama has led the way on a number of important initiatives for veterans, earning my support and the support of many other veterans I know. Here are just a few of his deeds:

Homeless Veterans: As a United States Senator, Obama has authored legislation to extend and expand critically important programs to stop homelessness among American veterans. He's worked with other Senators on the Veterans Affairs committee, ranging from Daniel Akaka (D-HI) to Larry Craig (R-ID), to pass legislation providing comprehensive services and affordable housing options to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development and community organizations.

Fighting for IL Veterans: After learning of reports that Illinois veterans were receiving less in disability than those from other states, Sen. Obama worked with Sen. Dick Durbin to engage with the VA and correct these gross disparities. As a result of his efforts, the VA opened an investigation into the issue and took steps to fix it including the hiring of more claims specialists for the Chicago VA office and the reexamination of vets' claims upon request.

Traumatic Brain Injury: Crossing the aisle once again to help vets, Sen. Obama also worked with Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) to pass an amendment ensuring that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). And Sen. Obama fought to include a requirement in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that the VA must provide combat veterans with a mental health care screening within 30 days of an appointment request. This provision originated in another Obama bill, the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act, which he introduced in both the 109th and 110th Congress.

And the list goes on — deeds not words. In addition to these accomplishments, Sen. Obama's agenda includes significant proposals to take care of America's sons and daughters whom we send into harm's way. These include, but aren't limited to, proposals to improve post-discharge transition; requiring interoperability between DoD and VA medical records systems; fully funding VA medical care; eliminating the means test which keeps middle class veterans out of the VA medical system; improving mental health care, particularly for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; continued research and innovation for TBI; fixing the VA benefits bureaucracy and eliminating the VA claims backlog; and continuing the VA medical system's tradition of excellence that's made it one of the nation's leading health care systems. He's also pledged to crack down on discrimination against veterans and to commit significant resources to the enforcement of the SCRA and USERRA statutes to protect active and reserve military personnel and their families.

These are the reasons why I support Sen. Obama, and why I am encouraging my fellow veterans to support him too. Notice that I haven't attacked the Clinton campaign at all; I think quite highly of Sen. Clinton and her work on the Armed Services Committee. However, I support Barack Obama because he inspires me, and because I believe he has the character, judgment and vision to lead this country. Attacking his rivals won't help veterans, nor will it help America. Electing Barack Obama will.

I was thrilled this morning to read the final results from the Iowa caucus. My candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, won decisively. The victory speaks for itself, but I think there's more to the story. Sen. Obama won by rallying Democrats, Republicans and Independents. He earned the support of voters with different backgrounds, beliefs, party identifications, faiths, and ages — and I think that says a lot about the broad appeal he will have in the general election. Voters connect with his post-partisan politics because they want a fundamental change. I believe that he's the right candidate for America at this point in our history, and that the voters in New Hampshire will rally behind him too.

His acceptance speech was downright inspiring. Check it out:



Fired up — ready to go. But let's remember that this is an Ironman Triathlon, not a sprint, and we've only just come out of the water on the swim. There's a long race between here and the Democratic nomination, and a marathon after that to election day in November.

Voters across New Hampshire are turning out in record numbers today in New Hampshire to cast their ballots in the primary elections which will help pick the 2008 nominees for President from the Democratic and Republican parties. It's inspiring to watch this many Americans step forward to participate in democracy. Heck, even infants are voting, as this picture from the NY Times depicts. Makes sense to me — they've got a big stake in the outcome.

I think that Sen. Barack Obama has a lot to do with this inspiration. America's looking for leadership in 2008 — not the kind of leadership through fear and division that we've had for the past 7 years. Americans need and want a president who will inspire us and lead the way to a better future. Sen. Obama is inspiring voters with his post-partisan appeals for hope and change, and I think those messages are really resonating with voters in New Hampshire. Even voters who don't support Obama are turning out in record numbers because of his inspiring campaign.

Every voter picks a candidate for different reasons. I've got my reasons for supporting Obama, but everyone walks into the ballot booth with a unique opinion and perspective. I think it's hard to say why support for Obama has surged over the last few weeks. Inside, I think each voter is taking a hard look at the candidates through the lens of the past 7 years, and asking themselves "Who can fix this mess that we're in?" One by one, voters are choosing Obama. I like this quote from the NYT because it reminds me of my mom, and also because I think it illustrates the way many voters are throwing their support to Sen. Obama:

Estelle Glover, a 57-year-old office manager wearing an American flag handkerchief around her neck when she voted at Bedford High School, was typical of many of the state’s independents in that she had just made up her mind. She had chosen Mr. Obama.

“I decided this morning,” she said. “I’m an independent voter. I feel he’s going to be like the John F. Kennedy of the year 2008. My son just got back from Iraq.”

“First it was McCain, but really watching him, I feel he’s lost that spark eight years ago,” Mrs. Glover said. “Right up until last night it was between Hillary and Obama, and I didn’t vote for Hillary because I wanted a president who’s going to go in there and do his own thing.”

Me too.

Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain captured the flags last night for their respective parties' presidential nomination. Obviously, as an Obama supporter, I'm disappointed in the outcome. But I'm still buoyed by the record turnout and indications that young voters are turning out like never before. That's a good news story regardless of your party, and in the end, I think it'll prove to be better news for the Democrats.

Why were the polls so wrong in NH? Tough question. The Washington Post has a good analysis of what went wrong with polling — and it's a long list. The weather wrecked the predictive models used to forecast voting behavior; the turnout wrecked the models too. And, in the end, I think the spirited contests between Obama and Clinton / McCain and Romney really pushed people to the polls like never before. Take all polls from here on out with a grain of salt.

What next? The action moves to NV and SC. My candidate's in a strong position in Nevada after earning the endorsement of the powerful culinary union out there. And I think the Obama campaign has a natural edge in South Carolina — particularly if he can mobilize the African-American and veteran vote. Veterans? Hell yeah. Sen. Obama has done more for vets than just about any candidate in the race, including a ton of work for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from his seat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Look for this to be a prominent pitch in the weeks to come.

Fired up! Ready to go!

One of my colleagues from the Obama campaign, W. Scott Gould, sent me this dispatch from the campaign trail in South Carolina. By way of background, Scott's a retired Navy officer and OEF veteran who's one of the sharpest guys I know on veterans policy issues, and I've been honored to work with him for the past several months as part of the Obama veterans policy committee. Here's his dispatch:

BEAUFORT, S.C. -- Veteran issues were front and center for Barack Obama on Wednesday at a rally in Beaufort High School home of the Blue Dolphins. Stirring introductions by Kent Fletcher, a recent Marine combat veteran from Iraq and a powerful endorsement by retired Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps John Estrada raised the need for strong leadership in national security, demanded that the country stand behind our wounded and called for an orderly and responsible end to the war in Iraq.

When Senator Obama took the stage, he asked all veterans present to stand and be recognized. Veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, rose to thunderous applause as he thanked them for their service.

Obama returned to veterans themes several times during his forty minute stump speech that involved a well crafted call-and-response: “Are you ready for change?” as the crowd roared back “We’re ready!” His main message came across to vets: his gratitude for their service; his recognition for their sacrifice; and his desire to support the services required to make that support real.

Obama said: “Our veterans should not have to beg for the services owed to them.” He spoke against the year-long backlogs and labyrinthine applications processes at the Veterans Administration. He called top-quality service for our vets: “A sacred trust between the nation and its wounded warriors”.

With South Carolina nearing its January 26 primary, Obama’s character and values were on display in an unfailingly positive and respectful tone that warned of last minute attempts to mislead voters. He took a few minutes to identify and rebut negative attacks. He described a 20 year career of grass roots organizing, law and politics; recounted the gift of love, education and hope given to him by his family; and, talked about the importance of acting for change and not accepting the old formulations and the unsuccessful approaches of the past.

Reactions in the audience were overwhelmingly positive. Bill Dooling, a Vietnam veteran, union organizer and retired teacher of 30 years said: “I saw Bobby Kennedy in the 1960’s. Obama has the same ability to motivate and inspire young and old. We need a President who can relate to all generations.” John Hurley, a Vietnam veteran said: “Obama has a deep and sincere desire to take care of vets. He has the intelligence, candor and judgment that we need in a Commander in Chief.”

Later that evening, in a more intimate round table with voters and veterans from the Obama campaign, an Iraq war veteran exchanged views with Sergeant Major Estrada on the proper balance between politics and the military. The Sergeant Major affirmed his belief that no one on active duty should be engaged in the political process. But, he added that everyone on active duty had the responsibility as a citizen to make up their own mind and vote. And those who have retired have a duty to contribute their judgment to the public debate.

As the primary campaign draws to a close, the veterans at the event were clearly enthusiastic about Obama. They appreciated his concrete record of support on veterans issues as a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. They responded to the honor, commitment and courage that have brought him this far in the campaign. But more importantly, they shared a powerful experience as Barack Obama talked passionately about a vision for our country that touched on the core ideals every veteran has sacrificed to preserve and sparked a desire to serve anew.

-- CAPT W. Scott Gould, USNR (Ret)
Co-Chair, National Veterans Policy Committee for Obama

Fired up -- ready to go!

Below is a campaign trail dispatch from Don Stanton, a retired Navy pilot who's one of my colleagues on the Obama campaign's veterans policy committee. We're building momentum and getting the word out -- but need your support on Tuesday.

NEW YORK, Feb. 2 -- Veterans for Obama converged on NYC to blanket the city with coordinated small “strikes” at many strategic locations to augment NYC Obama Director Rudi Shenk’s dedicated campaign forces. Vets are trying to target and win over many independent and undecided voters who are considering voting for Barack. Our NYC Veterans group is finding that New Yorkers and international visitors are very interested in Barack’s message of unity and hope.

In less than 24 hours, Vets and NYC volunteers distributed over 500 of Scott Allen’s (former Merchant Marine and the dedicated national syndicator of the latest installment of Veterans for Obama signs throughout the country) throughout lower Broadway, Grand Central Station with commuters heading for Westchester and Connecticut, Harlem, Brooklyn, on subways, and at various rallies throughout the City.

On 31 January, Matt Flavin (USN Iraq/Afghanistan vet) led Mike Donatelli (USAF,) Don Stanton (USN,) and Barry Junker (USN) to help fire up and speak to a Generation Obama pre-Debate rally at The Grand. Organizers had planned for 100 people, but about 700 turned up! RAI Italian TV interviewed Mike and Don.

This morning, NYC Veterans Coordinator, Jan Donatelli (USN,) participated in the Women for Obama family rally at Columbus Circle where she met John Kerry’s sister who came over and wanted a Veterans For Obama sign for her brother. Jan organized a Veterans Meet-up for Change in Union Square where many people showed interest in Obama’s message. The BBC, Huffington Post, Fox, and several local news outlets interviewed Jan and Mike about our Obama veterans efforts.

Other Veterans outreach events for Obama included:
Harlem Victoria Theatre visibility event, where a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation film crew interviewed Don and Mike on how Veterans For Obama got started and what we were doing around the country. A Finnish TV cameraman photographed vet signs in the subway and we participated in the Brooklyn Bridge Walk for Change. Union Square Veterans rally, the MTV rally in Times Square, and Obama volunteer coverage of nightspots.

The energy for Barack is building in NYC, and the region and the media are interested in his positive message!

Yes we can!

I missed last night’s debate in Austin between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because I was studying for the bar exam. But last night and this morning, I received several emails asking about this comment from Sen. Obama:

SEN. OBAMA: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief. (Cheers, applause.) And my — my number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm.

Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth, which means that we are training our troops properly and equipping them properly and putting them on proper rotations. And there are an awful lot of families, here in Texas, who have been burdened under two and three and four tours, because of the poor planning of the current commander in chief. And that will end when I'm president.

(Applause.)

But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation — whether or not to go to war in Iraq — I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)

Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

I heard from a 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. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years — going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right. [emphasis added]

Really? U.S. troops using captured weapons and ammunition? Is that true? That’s been the basic thrust of the emails I’ve received.

In a word: yes.

I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition requisition. These stories are timeless; you’ll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too. Anyone who’s dealt with the Army supply system – particularly at the pointy end of the spear – ought to be able to sympathize.

As an adviser to the Iraqi police, I sometimes carried non-standard weapons, including an Iraqi police Glock 9mm pistol and an AK47 that had been handed down from the previous adviser team. Early in my tour, my M9 Beretta broke; the armorer could neither fix it, nor figure out how to replace a reserve-component weapon, so I carried the Glock instead. I preferred the U.S. weapons because I had a lot more experience with them, and confidence in my ability to use them. But as an adviser, it was important to show solidarity with my Iraqi brethren, and one way to do that was to carry the same weapons they did. I saw other advisers to the Iraqi army and police doing this too, as well as a few conventional units that were partnered with Iraqi units.

Stepping back from this though, there’s a larger issue here.

How can U.S. troops possibly be short on equipment or ammo if we’re spending $10 billion a month and $500 billion a year on defense?

The answer is that we’re not smart about the way we divvy up and distribute what we’re purchasing with all that money. I can’t tell you how many times I saw a Fobbit walking around with a Gucci’d out M4 carbine – despite the fact that many never, ever left the FOB. (To “Gucci” a weapon means to outfit it with all kinds of extra gear, i.e. close-combat sights, infrared aiming lights, extra grips, etc.) Or how many staff officers I saw driving brand-new up-armored HMMWVs around their FOBs, which were never used for a single combat patrol. Or how many TACSAT radios I saw in the HMMWVs parked outside the division command post on FOB Speicher, in vehicles that rarely left the FOB – while I had to make do on long-range combat patrols with an unsecure Iridium satellite phone and Iraqi cellphone. Or how I traded Peet's Coffee (shipped by my family) with one unit for GPS transceivers, or bought pizza for an outgoing unit in exchange for their basic load of ammunition. Our troops in the field face situations like this every day because the U.S. military is inefficient and unwise about the way it allocates scarce resources. And at the end of the day, it's the men and women at the pointy end of the spear who suffer.

In light of my experience in Iraq, Sen. Obama’s comments last night are eminently believable. Sen. Obama is also absolutely right to use this anecdote as a critique of the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that the war in Iraq diverted scarce military resources (manpower, equipment, etc.) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The cost for that diversion was paid by America's sons and daughters, and our Afghan brethren, who continue to fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We owe our troops better.

Update I: ABC News' Jake Tapper talked with the captain on Friday, and verified the essential details of the story.

Update II: In the comments section, an active-duty Army officer relays his stories of using non-issue weapons in Iraq. His team of advisers used AK-47s, PKMs, and other Iraqi weapons, "Not because we wanted to, but because even in 2005, the system wasn't working for us." The same commenter also passes on a YouTube clip showing other officers in Iraq, including a full colonel, doing the same. Who ya gonna believe — me or your lyin' eyes?

Update III: My friend Abu Muquwama posts on the issue too, taking particular aim at the blanket assertion on some conservative sites that captains don't lead or command platoons. Abu's personal experience contradicts that; he led a platoon for 30 months, including three combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He was a captain for two of those. He also notes the shortened promotion times to captain and other macro-level trends in the force.

This week, MTV aired an hour-long show featuring separate roundtable discussions between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and 8 Iraq / Afghanistan veterans. The discussions covered a wide range of issues, from the war itself to post-deployment mental health care and homelessness among veterans.



According to an article in the Lancaster New Era, the Clinton roundtable "was not all about hugs and cheers and photo ops with supporters" — as illustrated by this exchange over the issue of veteran homelessness:

Another veteran, 28-year-old Herold Noel of New York, reminded Clinton that he visited her office in 2005 and talked to her about the problem of homeless veterans. "What did you do since 2005?" he asked.

Clinton said she worked with veterans groups to help some veterans find homes, but blamed bureaucratic red tape for not getting housing for more. Noel responded: "To me, it sounds like you're putting the blame on other things ... You, as the senator of New York, what did you do?"

Clinton responded, "I'm not making excuses. I'm saying there are all these roadblocks." She said he would fight for more money for facilities for veterans. "When we pull out of Iraq, we'll no longer be spending 10 to 12 billion dollars a month there."

Uh huh. All these roadblocks. That's a short step from "mistakes were made" or some other passive statement that places the blame somewhere else. In this case, a constituent came to Sen. Clinton and personally asked for her assistance. She promised him she would do something. But at the end of the day, she accomplished little — and chose to blame the bureaucracy.

In my opinion, this goes to the heart of the Commander-in-Chief issue. The candidate who is ready to be president on Day 1 is the candidate who understands the burden of leadership, and the sacred trust that we owe to our sons and daughters whom we send into harm's way — and who has fought more effectively than any other senator for more VA funding, programs to combat homelessness among vets, more research for PTSD and TBI, more mental health professionals, a better GI Bill, and a way to reduce the VA claims backlog. That candidate is Barack Obama.

These roundtable discussions show why Sen. Obama is the leading candidate among military voters and veterans — particularly Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. He has the strategic judgment we want to see in our Commander-in-Chief. He understands the solemn duty of the president to lead America's military, and to look after the men and women whom he sends into harm's way. He understands that the way we treat this generation of veterans will resonate for future generations. And, of all the candidates running, he has done more to demonstrate that through his work in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate on behalf of veterans.