21st Century GI Bill would encourage 30,000 new recruits annually.
21st Century GI Bill would encourage 30,000 new recruits annually.
A common conservative talking point against Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill is that it would reduce reenlistment rates by 16 percent, citing a recent CBO report. But the report also states that there will be a 16 percent increase in recruits. Slate explores the numbers and finds that the military would in fact see several times as many new recruits as drop-outs:
The problem is, the “16 percents” aren’t necessarily equal. You need to know the underlying numbers of recruits and re-enlistments. … The CBO estimate concluded that the 16 percent increase in recruitment would add an additional 30,000 recruits annually, while a 16 percent decline in re-enlistment would result in 7,000 fewer re-enlistments annually. In other words, new recruits would greatly outnumber soldiers who decline to re-enlist.
VA Secretary: Vets’ Concerns About PTSD Are ‘Overblown’
VA Secretary: Vets’ Concerns About PTSD Are ‘Overblown’
Over the weekend, Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake visited Alaska with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). While there, they met with Vietnam veteran John Guinn, who questioned the Secretary about the growing problem of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) amongst veterans. Instead of addressing Guinn’s concerns, Peake dismissed them:
VA secretary Peake suggested some of the concern about post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury has been overblown.
Many of the brain injuries are serious but some of them are akin to what anyone who played football in their youth might have suffered, Peake told Guinn.
Guinn wasn’t entirely satisfied with the answers. He said it’s a real issue for returning soldiers as well as their families, and he doesn’t think job training is enough.
On Saturday, Peake also said that many vets with PTSD may just need “a little counseling” and shouldn’t “need the PTSD label their whole lives.”
Peake’s comments are disturbing, especially in light of new numbers released by the Pentagon this week showing that the number of new PTSD cases “jumped by roughly 50 percent in 2007.” Since 2003, “roughly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with the illness.”
Additionally, as Brandon Friedman at VetVoice points out, Peake’s comments are undermined by VA psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, who has stressed the seriousness of PSTD:
The American Psychiatric Association has saddled us with the jargon “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” (PTSD) — which sounds like an ailment — even though it is evident from the definition that what we are dealing with is an injury. … We do not refer to a veteran who has had an arm blown off by a grenade as suffering from “Missing Arm Disorder.” … Combat PTSD is a war injury. Veterans with combat PTSD are war wounded, carrying the burdens of sacrifice for the rest of us as surely as the amputees, the burned, the blind, and the paralyzed carry them.
Recently, VoteVets and CREW also revealed that Peake’s agency has been discouraging staff from diagnosing soldiers and veterans with PTSD, encouraging them to instead “consider a diagnosis of ‘Adjustment Disorder.’” Peake has promised that he is committed to “absolute accuracy in a diagnosis.”
Army suicides reach two-decade high.
The AP reports that Pentagon officials said today that “108 troops committed suicide in 2007, the most since 1990.” Suicides have been rising despite a “host of efforts to improve the mental health of a force stressed by lengthy and repeated deployments to Iraq.” The 108 suicides last year followed 102 in 2006 and 85 in 2005.
Foreclosures in military towns quadruple the U.S. rate.
Foreclosures in military towns quadruple the U.S. rate.
Bloomberg reports today that “in the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average“:
Foreclosure filings in 10 towns and cities within 10 miles of military facilities, including Norfolk, Virginia, home of the Navy’s largest base, rose by an average 217 percent from January through April from a year earlier. Nationally, the rate was 59 percent in the same period, according to RealtyTrac, which tallies bank seizures, auctions and default notices.
The biggest surge was in Columbia, South Carolina, home to Fort Jackson, where the Army trains recruits for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Properties in some stage of foreclosure rose 492 percent from a year earlier, RealtyTrac said. The second-biggest increase was 414 percent in Woodbridge, Virginia, next to the Marine Corps Base Quantico.
“We’ve never faced a situation like this, not in the Vietnam War, World War II, or the Korean War, where so many military are in danger of losing their homes,” Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, told Bloomerg.
Conservatives Spend Memorial Day Weekend Explaining Their Opposition To GI Bill
Conservatives Spend Memorial Day Weekend Explaining Their Opposition To GI Bill
In an editorial this morning, the New York Times chides President Bush for his resistance to the GI Bill, which he has pledged to veto:
Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. […]
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino quickly unleashed an attack on the editorial, claiming the editorial board “doesn’t let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions — no matter how misleading they may be.” Yet, Perino offered no facts of her own to substantiate her anger.
Two of the White House’s key Senate allies — Ted Stevens and John McCain — have been disingenuously spewing misinformation about the GI Bill this weekend. Stevens warned of a “mass exodus” from the military if the 21st Century GI Bill goes into law. Similarly, McCain said today that the Webb GI Bill “would hurt the military and our country very badly.”
As ThinkProgress has previously noted, these fear-mongering claims about the GI Bill have little basis in reality. A recent CBO report showed that any loss in reenlistment rates is entirely made up for by increased military recruits.
The NYT editorial correctly notes, “[A]s a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.” But that won’t stop far-right conservatives from offering bad excuses, even on Memorial Day.
Veteran burials hit record numbers.
The AP notes that as the nation prepares to celebrate Memorial Day tomorrow, veteran burials are at a record high:
An average of 1,800 veterans die each day, and 10 percent of them are buried in the country’s 125 national cemeteries, which are expected to set a record with 107,000 interments, including dependents, this year. And more national cemeteries are being built.
The peak year for veterans’ deaths will be either 2007 or 2008, [Bill Tuerk, under secretary for memorial affairs at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] said. An estimated 686,000 veterans died in 2007. While many World War II veterans are dying, so are an increased number of Korean War and Vietnam veterans.
GAO, DOD inspector general to investigate Pentagon’s propaganda program
GAO, DOD inspector general to investigate Pentagon’s propaganda program
Last Thursday, the House passed an amendment to the defense authorization bill mandating that the Defense Department and the GAO investigate the Pentagon’s propaganda program, which was first revealed by The New York Times on April 20. The Times reports today that the DoD inspector general has announced an investigation and GAO has already started one:
The inspector general’s office at the Defense Department announced on Friday that it would investigate a Pentagon public affairs program that sought to transform retired military officers who work as television and radio analysts into “message force multipliers” who could be counted on to echo Bush administration talking points about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and terrorism in general. […]
The G.A.O. said it had already begun looking into the program and would give a legal opinion on whether it violated longstanding prohibitions against spending government money to spread propaganda to audiences in the United States. […]
The inspector general’s office said its inquiry would specifically look at whether special access to Pentagon leaders “may have given the contractors a competitive advantage.“
President Bush ‘Strongly Opposes’ 0.5 Percent Increase In Military Pay Because It ‘Is Unnecessary’
President Bush ‘Strongly Opposes’ 0.5 Percent Increase In Military Pay Because It ‘Is Unnecessary’
Yesterday, the House passed the Defense Authorization bill, which prescribes spending amounts for the military activities.
The bill includes a section to raise the pay for the soldiers by 3.9 percent – an increase of 0.5 percent over the Bush administration’s request. In a “Statement of Administration Policy” released yesterday, the White House asserts that it “strongly opposes” the pay increase authorized by Congress:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009:
At the same time it is strongly opposing a slight increase in pay for the troops, the Bush administration is asking for hundreds of billions more for war. To put it in all in context, the White House wants $165 billion to continue fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, but refuses to spend 0.2 percent of that amount ($324 million) to provide the troops a slight pay raise.
Despite his opposition to a pay increase, President Bush continues to demagogue the issue of support for the troops, telling soldiers at Ft. Drum yesterday that Congress is to blame for not having passed “a responsible war funding bill.” Of course, he didn’t tell that troops that by “responsible,” he means he wants a bill that gives them less pay.
Petraeus A ‘Happy’ Participant In Pentagon Spin Effort
Petraeus A ‘Happy’ Participant In Pentagon Spin Effort
The Wonk Room reports that a Pentagon document dump reveals that Gen. David Petraeus was a “happy” participant in its military analyst propaganda program, at the behest of Pentagon political appointees. When asked by Bryan Whitman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, to contact several retired generals scheduled to appear on “several Sunday Shows” in August 2005, Petraeus wrote back:
Donald Rumsfeld’s spokesman Larry Di Rita complained to “Dave” that “some of these retired military analysts are trying to have it both ways,” by supporting generals like Petraeus but criticizing the “secdef” — Donald Rumsfeld — and “his supposed bad plans”:
In his calls, Petraeus evidently painted a rosy picture of his mission to train Iraqi forces. Many of these generals blindly trusted his word, going on TV and asserting that American troops would be able to start coming home as Iraqi forces stepped up. As Gen. Montgomery Meigs told Tim Russert on Meet the Press on August 28, 2005:
And when I ask senior Army officials who are longtime friends who aren’t going to give me a BS answer how we’re doing, “Are we winning or losing?” they’re saying, “We’re winning.”
Read the full report here.
Top general encourages blogging, despite military policy blocking blogs.
Top general encourages blogging, despite military policy blocking blogs.
Small Wars Journal reports that Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Army Combined Arms Center (CAC), “one of the Army’s leading intellectual hubs,” has issued a memorandum directing students and faculty to learn more about blogging:
Command and General Staff College faculty and students will begin blogging as part of their curriculum and writing requirements both within the .mil and public environments. In addition CAC subordinate organizations will begin to engage in the blogosphere in an effort to communicate the myriad of activities that CAC is accomplishing and help assist telling the Army’s story to a wide and diverse audience.
As part of this effort, CAC has even started its own blog. But as Noah Shachtman notes, “It’s a position that appears to run counter to stated Pentagon policy. YouTube is officially banned on military networks. Personal blogs cannot be maintained during duty hours. Many influential blogs are blocked. Stringent regulations, read literally, require commanding officers to review each and every item one of his soldiers puts online.”
White House: Pentagon Propaganda Program Similar To Writing For A ‘Liberal Blog’
White House: Pentagon Propaganda Program Similar To Writing For A ‘Liberal Blog’
Earlier this month, the Pentagon released a document dump in response to the New York Times’s expose on its military analyst program. The documents raise questions about White House involvement in the program, which it previously denied.
For example, a March 16, 2006 e-mail from a Pentagon staffer said he or she was “hoping to have Hadley brief these guys [military analysts] next week,” referring to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Pentagon official Dallas Lawrence added, “Id love to see if we ocould get them in with potus as well. (I think that was submitted to karl and company…last week),” suggesting involvement in the program from then-Bush adviser Karl Rove.
In today’s White House briefing, a reporter asked spokesperson Scott Stanzel about these e-mails and meetings. Without denying White House involvement, Stanzel defended the program, saying it is the equivalent of giving information to someone who writes for a “liberal blog”:
But it’s not unusual for administration officials to brief people who are talking about our plans and our policies… just like I’m standing here answering your question and you go out on your liberal blog and talk about, you know, the way that you see things, we brief people who talk about the president’s policies.
Watch it:
As the reporter noted, however, the White House’s meetings with Pentagon officials and military analysts were “kept secret.” In contrast, the White House press briefings where the “liberal” reporter receives his information are available on cable television. “You can talk to the Defense Department. It was their program,” said Stanzel when asked why the meetings were not public.
Stanzel also ignored the fact that the military analysts often had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess.” A Fox analyst, for example, was “seeking contracts worth tens of millions” of dollars while giving on-air assessments of the Iraq war. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, generally do not have multi-million dollar government contracts at stake in their writing.
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Gen. Odom: Military Analysts Can’t Defend Relationship With Pentagon ‘Because Of Its Conspiratorial Nature’
Gen. Odom: Military Analysts Can’t Defend Relationship With Pentagon ‘Because Of Its Conspiratorial Nature’
On April 20, the New York Times published an extensive exposé of a secret Pentagon program that used 75 retired military analysts employed by television networks “as ‘message force multipliers’ or ’surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’” The program successfully infiltrated most media outlets; a review by Media Matters last week showed that these analysts have been quoted more than 4,500 times since 2002.
Appearing on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret.), the former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, said he was “shocked” by the revelation, saying the actions of these military men would be difficult to defend:
Well I was a little shocked by it. … My own sense of my obligations and my officer’s honor in the past would make me think that’s not a proper thing to do. … But I don’t think they’ll be able to defend that position publicly very well, particularly because of its sort of conspiratorial nature. I think it’s quite legitimate for military officers to talk to a number of people in the Pentagon, but to be part of a recurring meeting that is designed to shape the public opinion — that’s a strange thing for officers to be willing to do, in my view.
Listen here:
The secrecy Odom condemns was a prerequisite for participation. “The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”
Unlike Odom, conservatives see little wrong with the Pentagon’s operation. Neocons Max Boot and John Podhortez dismissed the revelations as “part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism” and said the story “reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino insisted that it was “absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it.”
VA struggling to treat women veterans.
Roughly 180,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) “treated more than 255,000 female veterans. The number is expected to double within five years.” The agency, however, is far from prepared to deal with women’s health care needs:
“They aren’t ready,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of VA officials. “Absent a proactive, concerted effort and knowing their limited resources, they (VA officials) are struggling with so much this might get lost.” […]
The legislation [introduced by Murray] also would require the VA to start caring for newborn children of female veterans who are receiving maternity care. Currently the VA doesn’t cover newborn costs. In addition, it would require increased training for VA personnel dealing with military sexual trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in women.
The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on Murray’s bill on Wednesday.
Pentagon advisory group considering awarding Purple Hearts for PTSD.
Pentagon advisory group considering awarding Purple Hearts for PTSD.
On May 2, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that awarding the Purple Heart to veterans afflicted with PTSD was an “interesting idea.” “I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at,” said Gates. Yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed that the department was considering the issue, but cast doubt that the policy would actually change:
MORRELL: You know, I don’t think it’s for the secretary to make a decision on. I think the question was broached to the secretary; he answered it as best he could. […]
I should point out they’ve looked at this before and they determined — the had determined that it was not appropriate to make PTSD a qualification for a Purple Heart. But I can tell you that the department is exploring PTSD as a qualifying wound through the DOD Awards Advisory Group. There is no timetable at this point for them to produce a recommendation. But that’s the status of it as of right now.
Iraq Veteran: Why Is McCain ‘Fighting To Kill’ ‘My One Hope And Dream,’ To Go To College After War?
Iraq Veteran: Why Is McCain ‘Fighting To Kill’ ‘My One Hope And Dream,’ To Go To College After War?
Today, nine members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus about their experiences fighting in the Iraq war. Kristofer Goldsmith, who served Sadr City and was stop-lossed after returning home, revealed that he had attempted suicide and was discharged. The discharge forced him to forfeit the educational benefits promised under the GI bill and thus his “one hope and dream” to go to college:
I was stop-lossed. My one hope and dream in the military was to go to college after I went through Iraq. I attempted suicide. I never deployed a second time. Because of that I received a general discharge. I lost my college benefits, the $40,000 promised to me in the Montgomery GI Bill, I will not be eligible to receive. And currently there is a Senator in Congress currently running for president, who is fighting to kill our Webb GI bill. And I’m one of the soldiers who will never get that money.
Watch it:
Of course, Goldsmith is referring to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has steadfastly opposed Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) bipartisan attempt to dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. In fact, McCain’s own watered-down alternative, which reserves the most generous benefits to those who serve at least 12 years, would exclude soldiers like Goldsmith who suffered physical or psychological problems that made serving 12 years impossible.
The Pentagon also sees no problem with excluding soldiers like Goldsmith from reaping educational rewards. Just recently, a Pentagon spokesman criticized Webb’s bill for providing full educational benefits to soldiers “after only two years of service.” He said that “six years would show a commitment to service” — a commitment the Pentagon apparently thinks Goldsmith, who could not serve for a full six years, never demonstrated.
VA discouraged staff from diagnosing PTSD for ‘compensation seeking veterans.’
VA discouraged staff from diagnosing PTSD for ‘compensation seeking veterans.’
VoteVets.org and CREW released an e-mail today that reveals “a Veterans Affairs (VA) employee directing VA staff to refrain from diagnosing soldiers and veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” The e-mail, dated May 1, 2008, complains about “compensation seeking veterans” and urges VA staff to rule out PTSD and “consider a diagnosis of ‘Adjustment Disorder’” instead:
Last month, RAND released a study showing that nearly 20% of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan — nearly 300,000 in all — “report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment.”
Larry Craig surfaces in contentious Senate GI Bill debate.
Larry Craig surfaces in contentious Senate GI Bill debate.
Huffington Post reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) “quietly created presidential campaign ripples on Tuesday” when he “announced that he would offer an amendment to the forthcoming Iraq war supplemental that would strip the legislation of Sen. Jim Webb’s [D-VA] GI Bill.” Earlier today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also played politics with veterans’ benefits using the GI Bill as a “parliamentary gimmick” to kill first responder legislation.
GOP Uses GI Bill As A ‘Political Gimmick’ On Senate Floor To Thwart Passage Of First Responder Legislation
GOP Uses GI Bill As A ‘Political Gimmick’ On Senate Floor To Thwart Passage Of First Responder Legislation
Today, the Senate debated the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980), a bill strengthening the collective bargaining powers of firefighters, police officers, and first responders.
At noon, the Senate quickly “devolved into a procedural mess” when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attempted to attach Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) watered-down GI Bill — which is strongly backed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — as an amendment. McConnell also immediately seconded his measure, but then filed cloture, “prohibiting Democrats from filing their own version of the proposal.”
This amendment is a poison pill. It not only kills the Public Safety bill, but also blocks Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) more generous GI Bill from being considered. In one swift maneuver, conservatives trampled over first responders and veterans. In a fiery speech, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) responded on the floor:
We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country. […]
We’re saying to the firefighters of this nation and to the police officers of this nation and the first responders of the nation: Your interest, the safety and security of our communities across the nation, should be put aside in favor of some political gimmick by the Republican leader here in the United States Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) angrily reacted to the GOP maneuver by issuing a quorum call and denying Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) right to speak three times. Watch it:
This morning, Politico reported that McCain and his allies were “reaching out” to Webb “in the hope of finding a compromise on a GI Bill.” It seems, however, that McCain became desperate to avoid a “potential embarrassment” and resorted to this political stunt. Unlike McCain’s bill, Webb’s has strong bipartisan support and the backing of a majority of the American public.
Why not focus on the GI bill after the first responders bill is over? Kennedy asked. “Do it Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. Maybe Sen. McCain will come back for it,” he said. “Maybe he won’t.”
McCain was not in the Senate today and questions remain whether he approved this strategy. “Maybe the leadership on the other side can tell us whether Sen. McCain approved this strategy,” added Kennedy. “Maybe you can find that out. I think the police and firefighters would like to know.”
Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Last month, the Pentagon released a document collection on its military analyst propaganda program. In a July 2006 e-mail between Public Affairs official Jeffrey Gordon and other Pentagon officials, Gordon attached several articles on detention policy by right-wing talkers, including Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin, that he said were “thoughtful.” In a later e-mail, Gordon said officials could use the articles “with military analysts as appropriate” (p. 5808). His initial e-mail lauded the right-wing voices (p. 5808):
From: Gordon, Jeffrey D LCDR OSD PA
To: Ruff, Eric, SES, OSD; Bryan Mr OSD PA; Keck, Gary L Col OSD PA; [Redacted] AFIS-HQ/PIA
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: articles on detaineesGentlemen,
As requested, attached document contains four thoughtful articles/columns about Guantanamo, from Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I have a call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs as well. I Envision that I will have more material tomorrow a.m.
What were the “thoughtful” remarks of Malkin and O’Reilly on detention policy? In the Malkin column, she said that a “far greater threat” than Guantanamo to America is the “unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left.” O’Reilly said there were only “minor cases of abuse” there. In fact, when news broke of suicides at the prison, Malkin’s reaction was “boo-freaking hoo.”
McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
On Fox News’s America’s Election HQ yesterday, Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), disingenuously attacked Sen. Jim Webb’s “21st Century GI Bill,” in order to justify her boss’s opposition to the bill. Webb’s bill “does nothing to address reenlistment and retention,” charged Pfotenhauer.
Pfotenhauer cited a recent Congressional Budget Office report to support her specious claims:
Senator McCain has his own legislation, and by the way, he’s largely supportive of the goals of the Webb bill. The problem is, it doesn’t do enough — it doesn’t it quickly enough and it does nothing to address reenlistment and retention. In fact, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the Webb bill went through, we’d see a reduction in reenlistment rates of 16 percent.
Watch it:
But, as ThinkProgress has noted, the CBO report cited by Pfotenhauer actually shows that Webb’s bill would increase enlistment to such an extent that it would completely offset the loss in retention:
Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. […]
Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.
Sen. John Warner (R-AZ), a co-sponsor of Webb’s bill who is also a veteran of World War II and Korea, has said that the flip side of the impact on retention is that “putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this.”
The Army is in need of new incentives like Webb’s bill in order to attract higher quality recruits. Thus far, in 2008, 13 percent of the Army’s recruits have been granted “conduct” waivers for misdemeanor or felony charges, which is up from 11 percent in 2007 and 4.6 percent in 2004.
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
According to Media Matters, the so-called “military analysts” exposed in the recent New York Times article disclosing the Pentagon’s propaganda program were quoted in the media “more than 4,500 times” since Jan. 1, 2002:
A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow’s article — many identified as having ties to the defense industry — collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.
View Media Matters’s full spreadsheet of analysts’ appearances here.
How The Pentagon Propaganda Machine Worked: ‘are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not! ;)’
How The Pentagon Propaganda Machine Worked: ‘are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not! ;)’
The Pentagon document dump on its propaganda program reveals this interesting insight as to how the Defense Department worked with conservative allies to manipulate the media.
In a Feb. 16, 2006 email exchange, Pentagon media staffers discussed coordinating with the Heritage Foundation to identify someone to speak about detainee treatment at Gitmo. An anonymous employee suggested retired Army Sergeant Major Steve Short because “he seems to be on message and very articulate.”
Pentagon public affairs official Allison Barber responded by warning that the DoD could not officially “endorse” one particular speaker over another. “Important to remember that heritage can invite anyone to present and that we don’t really have an opinion on anyone,” Barber wrote.
The anonymous author then suggested he or she might lie and pretend not to have ever heard of Short:
Just two weeks after this email exchange — on March 1, 2006 — Short was invited by Heritage to participate on a panel entitled “GITMO: What You Read Vs. What You See.” And he was indeed “on message”:
The next day, UPI reported Short’s comments:
Jennifer Daskal, advocacy director for U.S. programs at Human Rights Watch, endorsed these charges. “Allegations of torture and abuse are pervasive,” she said.
However, Heritage speakers with firsthand experience of Guantanamo dismissed all claims of mistreatment. According to Steve Short, a retired Command Sergeant Major with the U.S. Army, “I can honestly say that when taking part in briefings, I never heard anything that indicated any inappropriate action was being taken against detainees.”
Short emphasized the extensive training received by military personnel running the base. U.S. soldiers “cared for detainees in much the same way that they would like to be cared for if the situation were reversed,” he said.
For the Pentagon propaganda machine – a mission accomplished.
Pentagon document dump: E-mailer suggested ’softball’ interview with top general.
Pentagon document dump: E-mailer suggested ’softball’ interview with top general.
Last month, the Pentagon released an extensive document dump with details on its military analyst propaganda program. TPM Muckraker notes that in a 2006 e-mail, someone (with a redacted name) e-mailed Pentagon officials stating that Jed Babbin, a participant in the analyst program, would be guest hosting for right-wing radio talker Michael Medved. Babbin requested an interview with Gen. George Casey, then top commander in Iraq. Pitching the request to interview Casey to the Pentagon officials, the e-mailer said: “this would be a softball interview and the show is 8th or 9th in the nation.” Allison Barber, a Public Affairs official at the Pentagon, responded:
Thanks for sending this.
Just fyi, probably wouldn’t put “softball” interview in writing. If that got out it would compromise jed and general casey.
The e-mailer wrote back: “check, check.”
American Legion Backs Webb GI Bill: This Bill Would ‘Encourage’ Young People To Join The Military
American Legion Backs Webb GI Bill: This Bill Would ‘Encourage’ Young People To Join The Military
The Bush administration has come out strongly against Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) efforts to dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. In a press briefing on May 6, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell warned of the “harm” Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill would do to troop retention and objected to the generous benefits given after “only” two years of service:
But we are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them after only two years of service. We think pegging it to a longer period of service — the number we have in mind, at this point, is six years of service — that the longer you stay in, the sweeter the benefits are to you. … The last thing we want to do is provide a benefit — or the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which we are losing our men and women who we have worked so hard to train.
On Friday, the American Legion released a statement criticizing the Bush administration’s position and endorsing Webb’s bill:
“This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military,” [National Commander Marty] Conatser said. “As far as retention goes, the CBO estimates that a simple $8,000 bonus to personnel at their first enlistment point would increase reenlistments by 2 percentage points. Another way to encourage mid-level servicemembers to stay in the military is to transfer GI Bill benefits to family members so the servicemember can remain in the military and still benefit from the program.”
As Conatser points out, any declines in reenlistment would be made up for by increases in recruitment. The recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment found that Webb’s bill, which would “more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point,” would result in a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate. However, it would also “result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.”
Conatser also addressed criticisms that the GI Bill is too expensive, pointing out that the “bulk of that cost is paid for by the men and women who wear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war.”
Reid promises Senate hearings on Pentagon propaganda program.
Reid promises Senate hearings on Pentagon propaganda program.
During today’s Firedoglake Book Salon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised that the Senate would be holding hearings on the Pentagon’s propaganda program, which was first disclosed by the New York Times on April 20. Reid’s announcement is the first time the Senate leadership has indicated that it intends to hold hearings:
LISH: Senator, are you planning to hold hearings on the illegality of the Pentagon’s propaganda training program of retired military officers that was recently exposed by the New York Times and Glenn Greenwald?
REID: The answer is yes. I have personally spoken to Chairman Levin and he is tremendously concerned as I. And we are proceeding accordingly.
Fallen U.S. troops cremated at ‘Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.’
Fallen U.S. troops cremated at ‘Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service.’
Since 2001, the U.S. military has cremated the remains of approximately 200 service members at Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service, a Delaware facility that primarily cremates pets. The practice was stopped yesterday, as the Washington Post reports:
The revelation came to light when an Army officer who works at the Pentagon traveled to Delaware on Thursday to attend the cremation of a military comrade. Offended to discover that the facility was labeled as a pet crematory, the officer sent an e-mail late Thursday night to superiors at the Pentagon that included a photograph of the signage.
The Friends Forever manager said that service members usually dropped off remains and returned the next day to pick them up. The practice is “contrary to the normal procedure,” in which the military is supposed to provide “an escort for all service members killed overseas during transport to the United States, and again after ‘medical processing’ at the Dover mortuary as the deceased returns home for interment.”
New CBO Report Proves McCain Is ‘Full Of It’ In His Opposition To Webb-Hagel GI Bill
New CBO Report Proves McCain Is ‘Full Of It’ In His Opposition To Webb-Hagel GI Bill
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the Pentagon have voiced their opposition to the bipartisan Webb-Hagel GI Bill by spouting fears that “too many will use it,” and it will therefore “harm” the military.
A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report analyzing the impact of the GI Bill shows that McCain is indeed “full of it.” While the report explains that troop retention will decline because some troops will take advantage of their new education benefits, the loss in retention will be entirely made up for by increased military recruits:
Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. […]
Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.
Ignoring the conclusion of the CBO report, the Army Times prints this deceptive headline suggesting that the GI Bill will only harm the military: “CBO: Better GI Bill would cut retention 16%.”
As Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has said, the flip side of the impact on retention is that “putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.” If McCain and the Bush administration truly wanted to repair retention problems, they shouldn’t take benefits away from troops but rather — as Jon Soltz has said — “focus on the role of contractors, who continually snatch up troops, offering them up to 10 times their military pay to do a similar job in Iraq.”
Rumsfeld blames the generals for poor pre-war planning.
Rumsfeld blames the generals for poor pre-war planning.
In February 2003, Gen. Eric Shinseki famously predicted that “several hundred thousand” troops would be needed for post-war hostilities in Iraq. According to documents recently released by the Pentagon in response to The New York Times’s expose on its propaganda program, however, Donald Rumsfeld claimed in a 2006 briefing that the reason why he did not support a larger invasion force was because commanders did not request it:
RUMSFELD: Now, it turns out he [Shinkseki] was right. The commanders–you guys ended up wanting roughly the same as you had for the major combat operation, and that’s what we have. There is no damned guidebook that says what the number ought to be. We were queued up to go up to what, 400-plus thousand.
Q: Yes, they were already in queue.
RUMSFELD: They were in the queue. We would have gone right on if they’d wanted them, but they didn’t, so life goes on.
In reality, Rumsfeld fought back when generals like Shinseki requested more troops. He said in 2003 that Shinseki was “far from the mark.” As McClatchy reported in 2004, “Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld’s opening bid was about 40,000. … By September 2003, Rumsfeld and his aides thought, there would be very few American troops left in Iraq.”
Only Two News Networks Willing To Explain Their Role In Pentagon Propaganda Program
Only Two News Networks Willing To Explain Their Role In Pentagon Propaganda Program
On April 20, the New York Times published a blockbuster exposé revealing a secret Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Though the analysts often had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies” they assessed on air, their potential conflicts of interest were “hardly ever disclosed to the viewers.”
Four days after the Times’ expose hit newsstands, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wrote letters to the heads of ABC News, CBS News, CNN News, Fox News Channel, and NBC News asking for “specifics about each outlet’s policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War.” Here’s part of what she wrote to ABC News head David Westin:
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed.
Politico reports today that only Westin and CNN’s Jim Walton have responded to DeLauro’s questions. In his response, Westin asserted that ABC News had “acted responsibly”:
From what I know of our reporting involving our military analysts, I am satisfied that ABC News has acted responsibly and has served its audience well.
Both Westin and Walton’s responses lacked any genuine self-examination. But the fact that they were even willing to reply is more than the other networks did, proving that the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz was right when he said “the networks are ducking this one, big time.” In the week after the story broke, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that “out of approximately 1,300 news stories, only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop — both airing on PBS’s ‘NewsHour.’”
DeLauro, along with 40 other lawmakers, are calling on the Pentagon’s Inspector General to investigate the program.
‘Military analyst’ to Rumsfeld: ‘You are the leader. You are our guy.’
‘Military analyst’ to Rumsfeld: ‘You are the leader. You are our guy.’
The Pentagon recently released documents related to its propaganda program, first disclosed by The New York Times on April 20. Media Matters notes that the now public records reveal a meeting in April 2006 between then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace, in which one unidentified “analyst” praised his “leader”:
During the meeting, one of the attendees tells Rumsfeld, “[W]e get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating” and says that he would “personally love” for Rumsfeld “to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we’re — forgive me — we’re parroting, but it’s what has to be said. It’s what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.” The individual adds: “And we’d love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.”
Media Matters has “documented the consistent unwillingness of most of the outlets mentioned in the Times article to discuss the military analyst story.”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate