The Walter Reed Fracas

By now if you read any MilBloggers, you probably have heard about the "outpatient mess" at Walter Reed and all of the subsequent blame being shifted around because of it.

Blogger and Walter Reed frequent flyer CPT. Chuck Ziegenfuss has some interesting things to add to the debate:

Look at the charities who help the wounded--whether flying them or their families to hospitals, making Velcro clothes so they can dress themselves, helping to take care of the soldier's kids, getting them a drastically discounted rental vehicle so they can get from hospital to hotel and back, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. Every single gap that a charity had to fill equates to a leadership failure--a failure to recognize the unique needs of the soldiers and their families. Please don't misconstrue this as my dislike of charities, the exact opposite is true, they are lifesavers. But when a wounded soldier has to rely on the sympathy and charity of others to simply live day to day, to meet his most basic needs, then the Army, and the government as a whole, has failed them.

As a leader in the Army, who has gone through this system, I SHOULDER PART OF THE BLAME FOR NOT TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I left my brothers behind, and got myself home. After recovery, I moved on to other things, even though the complaints made today are the same as they were 2 years ago. Families are in the dark, medhold is a ridiculous and poor taste joke and apparent cover-your-ass move by the chain of command. I am an officer. I am a leader. By allowing this to happen, and continue to happen, I am at fault for not getting it fixed earlier or fixing it myself.

Other people who share the blame: The soldiers and family members who didn't use normal channels, like the Inspector General, the Chain of Command, or even letters to congressmen to fix the problem. They ran to the press, and embarrassed the Army. The chain of command, and more to the point, the NCO support channel and "chain of concern." Every Sergeant from the newly-minted Corporal to the Command Sergeant Major is tasked with looking out for the health, safety, and welfare of the soldier, and advising the command on the soldier's needs. As a matter of fact the ONLY role of a Command Sergeant Major is to advise the commander on enlisted matters. Clearly, the ignorance of these issues by the chain of command indicated an extreme dereliction of duty on the part of the Non Commissioned Officer (Hey CSM: maybe if you'd spent more time with the soldiers at the Mologne house, Fisher house, and other places the wounded congregate, instead of chasing me another 25 feet up the hill to the designated smoking area; or making sure that there were plenty of signs in the right areas to tell people they couldn't smoke there.)

Maybe you, hospital commander, and all of your high-ranking staff could move your designated parking spots to the other side of post, forcing yourselves to walk up and down the hill to the Mologne house every day, through winter's ice and snow, spring's rain, and summer's heat, just like the men on prosthetic legs and wheelchairs do. (But hey, thanks bunches for the chain link handrail, it sure does come in handy when trying to pull yourself up the hill.

As a company commander, I made time to walk through my billets, and even in combat I made soldier's living conditions a priority. I agree with Dr. Harvey. The command is to blame for this. I will accept the challenge of fixing it, assuming that I receive the commensurate promotion and pay raise. It'll be fixed in 6-12 months--but I need the authority to hire and fire anyone working on Walter Reed, military and civilian, to move people and organizations as I deem necessary, and the authority top bring in other officers and soldiers who I know will get the job done. (not that it'll happen, but hey, I'd take the job in a heartbeat.

As for getting that job done, Chuck's not alone.  There are plenty of folks who would be more than happy to pitch in.  Myself included.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.

A Real Hero

Unlike these 17 cut-and-run pussies (scroll down at link for the list).....

h/t AWTM and Denny via C&S

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Calling the Democrats' Bluff

An Open Letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Dear Sir and Madam:

You have said often enough that you don't believe in the war in Iraq and that you want to bring the troops home. Yet all you do is talk and sign non-binding resolutions which only goes to show that you really don't mean what you say about ending the war or that you're just playing political games and in doing so giving aid and comfort to a dedicated enemy.

Now if you're serious about ending the war you have the means and the votes to do just that. Simply cut off the funding for the troops, bring them all home and the American people can transfer the deed to this war and the ramifications of what you do to the Democrat party and you can live with the results.

You say you support the troops, but that has to be a lie. If you supported them and you truly think the war is wrong, you'd bring them home or either dispense with the poisonous rhetoric and get in behind them and help them get the job done.

You can't have it both ways. If you support the troops do something. Your party won a majority in both houses, so you have control so take the responsibility.

Of course, I think you should remember that when the terrorists follow us home from Iraq and start their attacks on American soil it's too late, so you'd better have a plan to deal with it. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran goes into Iraq and makes it a staging ground for Al Qaida to plan and carry out attacks all over the western world you'll need to deal with that. Do you have a plan?

And if Iran decides to go into Kuwait and cut off the oil flow from the Persian
Gulf, you'll need a way to make up for the shortfall. Do you have a plan?

The world would look at us as a country that has not finished a commitment to war since 1945. Do you have a plan for dealing with that?

The purpose of this letter is to call your bluff. I don't believe you have the guts to do anything but talk and talk is cheap. Oh you have no shortage of words but I seriously doubt the amount of backbone you have.

Do you really think that signing a non binding resolution is really fooling anybody into thinking you're anything less than career politicians trying to tip the scales of the O08 Presidential Election?

What you're doing is silly and dangerous. If you really don't like what's going on, chang

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
February 16, 2007

H/T Linda SoG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

head shaking...

And it's not because of the ear pain.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Moonbattery at its FINEST:

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called "free" country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.

The whole thing is insane.  This paragraph in particular, is a MASTERPIECE:

These military and mercenary terrorist-students are trained in terrorist training camps all under the USA, funded by American taxpayers. In fact, people under the USA are "sacrificing" their healthcare and their children's educations while donating their tax dollars to these terrorist training camps. These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power
hungry US corporate war lords.

The author of this quasi intelligible twaddle is June Scorza Terpstra, Professor of Social Justice at Loyola University in Chicago.

Read the whole thing.  No really, I'll wait.

People like this woman give all academics a bad name.The same free speech and social justice that she worships for the poor, the downtrodden, and the left, she refuses to extend to the very ones who allow to keep those freedoms.  The irony drips.  How naive do you really have to be to think that what our troops are doing in the Middle East is all about Greed and Power and Neocon ego-stroking???

I have just one question for this so-called social justice proponent:  Which is better, social justice-wise: To live in the US as it is today, with Freedoms of Speech, Press, Religion, etc; where women are free to wear as many or as few clothes as they like, drive, speak their minds (including YOU, lady), and vote; where you can walk about (in the daylight at least) in most cities without fear of imminent death; etc, etc?  Or would you like to live under sharia law as it is practiced in much of the Muslim world?  Would you like to wear a burqa or hajib, have NO rights under the law, be vulnerable to rape and murder on a whim, be uneducated, and unable to drive, choose your husband (or not), or go anywhere alone?  Do you want to live in fear of terrorism or the secret police who come after you just because they don't like you?

These "war criminals" allow you to keep you job, your lifestyle, your right to vote.  In case you forgot, 20 of those fuckers came over here and told us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS 5 years ago that they mean business, and they don't care.  If the terrorists out there are willing to sacrifice themselves, their children and old people, and everything they have to end our way of life, then we must be EQUALLY DETERMINED to keep it.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.  You cannot use diplomacy in the face of nuclear weapons. Or even IEDs.

The lesson of Vietnam is NOT that we walked away.  The lesson is that walking away leaves chaos in its wake.  And we cannot afford to do that this time around.

h/t Smash

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

My nappy time pillow is calling

So I am off to try to get some sleep, or else finish watching the Poirot movie I fell asleep to...

But I want to leave you with this:

God Bless you Bert Brady, and all the others who take a moment from their day to say a simple "Thanks". And kudos to ABC for telling their story.

Happy VD everybody!

h/t Sparkle via email.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Lieberman is my hero

I've been on record for years saying that I'd cross party lines to vote for him for President, but the left seems to be too stupid to realize that UNITING this country means appealing to all facets of the political spectrum, something Joe seems to do almost universally.  Sure, the wingnuts hate him because he's a socially liberal demotard, and the moonbats hate him because he's a hawk and anti-abortion.

But his is the only consistent voice of conscience on the Hill, and for that, I respect him.  For this statement made to the Senate on Feb. 5, I respect him even more:

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America's security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

...

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

...

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.

But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution "by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake" confirms our enemies' belief in American weakness.

This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?

And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops, but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.

Read the Senator's entire statement here. 

Thank you Senator, for having the courage of your convictions to stand up and remind your colleagues that politics and personal pettiness should always be secondary to the support of the men and women who defend our freedoms.

h/t SMASH

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1126 words, total size 7 kb.