House Armed Service Committee Hearings you should have heard about

Consider this a "Dona note to the readers" and I'm writing an introduction to these important passages C.I. wrote for The Common Ills last week. I'm more than happy to write an introduction for them. But why I'm the one writing it and why an introduction is needed at all goes to this week's edition.

I'm tossing this out here because Jim does not believe me. But we will never have another edition like the one that took place. While others try to type up sections of the roundtable, I am noting what I said after it was over, "Never again." That doesn't mean "no roundtables," that means no more "Let's talk abaout whatever we want for six hours and then we can pull all that stuff out." 6 hours and 15 minutes is how long the roundtable lasted. Pulling things from the roundtable are supposed to take place because it's unmanageable (in terms of length) or, while you agree with something you said, you're not ready to take it public or concerned about hurt feelings. Those are adequate reasons.

When the roundtable goes up, note every woman speaking and every man speaking. Women have pulled nothing. Our remarks are all in the roundtable as typed up. Reading over it, if you're wondering how the thing could last six hours, you need to grasp that topics like the Olympics were included. I don't give a damn about sports but if someone thinks it's a topic for the roundtable, fine. Maybe it will appeal to some readers. Maybe someone will stop by to read that and learn about the illegal war. But an hour -- and it was an hour, I timed it -- of sports talk took place and not one word remained in the roundtable. I asked Jim about that when he was X-ing through that entire section in long hand (which not only took an hour but required Ava and C.I. writing down every word of because they take notes) and he said, "Oh, that was never going to go in. We were bulls**ting." Well that's an hour of my life I would like to have back. I've sent out an e-mail to all who participated and stated that the next roundtable will not allow for more than one section pulled by each person. The only exception I'll make to that is Elaine. She frequently reads over a PDF of Ava and C.I.'s notes to check out her statements and make sure that there is nothing that could make her patients uncomfortable. (Elaine does not talk about her patients or her sessions. Her concerns include that an off-hand remark by someone else, especially Mike whom she's involved with, might appear otherwise.)

But, again, women were not the problem. Women did not, for instance, launch into a discussion of how movies really needed another Matrix trilogy. Women did not go on and on about that. Women did not say, after the roundtable was over, "Pull that section." Now it wasn't all men who wasted time. I'm comfortable naming Jim because (a) I sleep with him and (b) he is supposed to be moderating those roundtables.

Jim and I had very loud words this morning over the roundtable this morning which led to me waving all the pages -- entire pages of notes taken during the roundtable -- that had a large X over them. Jim countered with Wally and Cedric's Texas discussion and Elaine and C.I.'s comments on the 'closeted.' If, Jim argued, time was so important, we should have cut off before those things. Both of those topics were of enough interest to our readers for them to e-mail on them. In terms of Texas, Wally and Cedric are on the ground there so their observations are very important. Equally true is that LIARS like Amy Goodman and Laura Flanders are again use LIE terms like "red states." Apparently, Flanders didn't read her own book -- lucky her. For that reason alone, any coverage of Texas or any other state labeled with a color-coded lie is important. Equally true is that no one pulled a word from those sections.

As we continued arguing, Ava and C.I., who'd been off trying to write their TV commentary, came in and Ava said, "F**k this, we all need some sleep. No note, no explanation. It's a holiday weekend, our record is so lousy in terms of posting on time these days that no one should be surprised." C.I. backed her up and we all went to sleep with comments of another day "wasted" because we'd have to get some sleep and then return to the edition to type it and post it.

Never again. That's the title of the e-mail I sent out to all participating in the roundtable. If you don't think a topic's important enough to include in the final version of the roundtable, don't bring it up, don't waste everyone's time on it.

Last week, C.I. included reports on two House Armed Service Committee meetings. That is important and they were not covered in real time. Our hope was to write a report on them. That was our plan. As I note at some point in the long meandering roundtable (which won't read that way due to about twelve topics being completely edited out), we may have to just repost C.I.'s writing because there may not be time. There wasn't time.

So that's my introduction to what follows as well as my statement that this will never happen again and I will shoot down every suggestion of a roundtable for the next four weeks (at least) due to the one took place beginning Saturday night and was still going on well into Sunday morning.

In Thursday's "Iraq snapshot," C.I. took a look at a House committee on "Military Readiness:"

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."

Kokesh and IVAW will have testimony worth hearing. But today in Congress, maybe not so much with others? Michele A. Flournoy rips through group associations faster than Fox 'News' offers up excuses for the White House. No longer with CSIS, she's now with CNAS and the only logical explanation for the switch may be that the taint on CSIS is too extreme (War Hawks and War Hawks who were wrong). CNAS is the Center for a New American Security and if you ever wonder why so many 'reporters' sound so damn similar look no further than the ambitious start-up of CNAS which has already signed up, for their 'writers program' -- think of it as day-camp, if not day care, for those not ready for sleep away camp. Little Davey E. Singer and Davey Clouds, the paper of record's Two Davids (Cloud is no longer with the paper) along with Greg Jaffe (ex-Wall St. Journal) get cookies and watered down juice each day. Are the three so busy with pillow fights and panty raids (on one another?) that our young students can't think a minute or two about affialiating with an organization that things counter-insurgency (slaughtering the native people) is something to hop on board with? There really isn't a great deal of independence in the press (Big or Small).

Wearing a shocking pink wrap-around (was it a sari, a sarong or a mini-burka?) that may have been as frightening to the eye as her plans for war-war-more-war! are to the heart and mind, Michele A. Flournoy was among those speaking to the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Military Readiness: Implications for Our Stategic Posture which was chaired by Ike Skelton.

Ike Skelton brought up West Point professor and Army General Barry McCaffrey's remarks that ten percent of today's army recruits do not need to be in uniform (McCaffrey to the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2007: "Ten percent of Army recruits are of low caliber and do not belong in uniform") and Flournoy responded that "1 in 5 are receiving some kind of waiver to enter the force" and that, relying on what she identified as anecdotal evidence, that military command she speaks with say that "more and more of their command time worrying about a central number of problem children in their unit." What's being discussed there are the multiple waivers being granted and the lowered standards for recruting. Moral waivers -- such as the one Steven D. Green were let in on -- are a serious issue and just as head injuries are the key injury of the Iraq War, recruits let in on waivers may be the key characteristic of enlistment today. [Steven D. Green has been portrayed in military court-martials as the ringleader who plotted the gang-rape and murder of Abeer in the home invasion that also killed her five-year-old sister and both of her parents. Green maintains that he is innocent. Others participating in the War Crimes have admitted to their own guilt and consistently fingered him as the ring-leader. Green is scheduled to go on trial in a civilian court in April.]

US House Rep Jim Saxton, apparently hoping to serve in the jury pool at Green's trial, maintained that "we have looked at this at length and found that some soldiers with waivers do better than soldiers without." Flournoy wasn't speaking of "some," she was speaking of a trend. Saxton didn't help his own argument wasting everyone's time with a statistical citation that had no point. "About .26%," he declared of recruits let in with waivers, "was the rate of disatisfaction expressed by waivered [recruits]" while the "unwaivered" -- e.g. traditional recruits -- was "double that." Imagine that. More recruits let in on a moral waiver that allowed them, like Green, to avoid a jail term or probation are happy to be in the military? That is a shocker. Flournony restated that she was maintaining this was an issue that needs to be studied -- by the military and Congress, she was repeatedly clear -- and noted, "In some cases, these waiver soldiers become models in the army. In other cases, they don't and they show greater difficulty in meeting army standards so I think it is something we need to watch over time. I think the jury's out . . . and we need to watch it very carefully over time."

To be clear, the waivers have always existed and many men and women have joined the military under those circumstances and excelled by the service's own standards. That's not the issue nor is the issue that the waivers exist. The issue is the heavy reliance on them today. Someone who may be a bit below the basic standards that really wants in (even to avoid jail or probation -- though some get waivers for academic backgrounds and other issues) can (and they have) live up to all the goals and even surpass those goals. That's not the issue. The issue is that these cases were not the norm for recruitment in times past. Today, if the military couldn't rely on the waivers, they wouldn't meet their targeted goals and a lot of people who should not be accepted are being let in. This is an issue for those stationed and it is an issue for career military types. We'll come back to this topic but let's highlight the rest of the hearing briefly since it seems like the press these days has a really hard time reporting on Congressional hearings.

US House Rep Solomon P. Ortiz was concerned that "the time it would take to restore military readiness gets longer and longer every day." Those invited to give testimony did not dispute that or question it -- it was noted that when there's no X-day for the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) to be completed, restoring readiness will be always be an estimate that's altered continually -- such as with Bully Boy's decision to 'pause' the drawdown. US House Rep Duncan Hunter was concerned with the readiness of the inventory -- both in terms of whether or not bar-coding is used to track military equipment and also in terms of "what it would be better to leave" in Iraq "and what we might want to cascade to the Iraqis." On the first part, it wasn't clear (whether any tracking was used consistently throughout the branches). On the second part, this fell back into the theme that the US military is being asked, in Iraq (Afghanistan as well, but the comments focused on Iraq), to carry out tasks that are not military tasks. US House Rep Patrick Murphy noted a recent trip overseas where he was asked by a service member "Where the hell is everyone else?" because the military was doing the work that the US State Department and USAID should be doing. US House Rep Vic Snyder stated that the cost will be "20 to 30 billion additional dollars to do the kind of counter-insurgency we need to do." No one bothered to ask what "kind" that was or to question the idea that counter-insurgency was a plus. Sharon Pickup of GAO did make the point that "DoD needs to" clearly outline "what it is getting for the money" but that was a passing comment that no House member felt the need to explore. This despite the fact that Pickup's comment was perfectly in keeping with what Skelton outlined in his opening remarks, "If an unexpected contingeny arises, what will be the cost to us in lives and in dollars? Is that cost one we are truly prepared to accept, or would we instead wish we had done more to prepare for or prevent it? We must also evaluate the initiatives and programs which the Department of Defense is proposing to address our strategic risk and determine whether they are realistic, and whether their scope and pace is sufficient to protect national security." But maybe, here's where we get back to the main topic, answers aren't going to come when centrists think-tank flacks are the ones speaking. Why were the Dems put in control of both houses of Congress? To end the illegal war. And they can't even expand upon the witnesses they call to testify. Anita Dancs of the National Priorities Project was far more informed on the January 23rd broadcast of Uprising Radio (noted in this snapshot) than Floury was today speaking to a Congressional committee.

Friday, C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" reported on a hearing allegedly about the care for wounded soldiers:

Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.

You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MovieFone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.

Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.

Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.

US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.

Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".

Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.

Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.

Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."

US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."

Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.