Recently in Defense Category

TPMMuckraker's Justin Elliott updates the status of an investigation involving Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee, defense contractors, and the PMA Group, a lobbying group raided by the FBI earlier this year.

A federal criminal investigation has touched two House Dems, and another three, along with two Republicans, are under scrutiny by a pair of congressional ethics panels in matters related to the defunct lobbying firm, PMA Group.

The investigation appears to have two focal points, according to reports: that PMA may have funneled sham donations to members of Congress through so-called "straw donors" who would be reimbursed, and that there may have been a quid pro quo, exchanging defense earmarks for campaign donations.

Of all the factors that could cause the Democrats to lose major seats in 2010, I admit this one has me quite worried. Catching up with Elliott's post is well worth your time.

President-Elect Barack Obama's decision to nominate General Eric Shinseki (Ret.) to head the Department of Veterans Affairs is a triumphant pick on so many levels.

This department has sadly been neglected even as the ranks of veterans requiring services as swelled during the past decade's two major wars. General Shinseki is a man of deep honor and true accomplishment. A person of his talents is needed to head the VA -- and the president-elect deserves great credit for putting him there.

And all of this is before we consider the political messages this pick represents. Those are also transcendent.

Shinseki, remember, was the general who was right before the Iraq War. Time's Mark Thompson reminds us of the important details:

Shinseki has avoided the public eye since retiring five years ago. One month before the Iraq War began, Shinseki testified before Congress that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to secure Iraq after the U.S. invasion, far more than the Administration had said were needed. He supported the military tradition of preparing for the worst, deploying more troops than might be necessary and then bringing the surplus home. He accurately predicted that ethnic tensions would trigger violence in Iraq and require significant ground forces to contain. The war ultimately required a "surge" of 30,000 additional troops beginning in January 2007, validating Shinseki's premonition. But Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz belittled his assessment.

"Beware a 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army," Shinkseki warned at his retirement ceremony, an event attended by neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz. It was a public rebuke that sent a shiver through the officer corps, and made clear that professional dissent -- however carefully considered and delivered by a top officer, with 38 years in uniform -- could derail an exemplary career. (Contrary to public perception, however, Shinseki was not fired by Rumsfeld. He served out his term as Army chief of staff, although Rumsfeld's allies had already hacked away at Shinseki's influence by proclaiming him a lame duck during his final year, even before his controversial testimony.)

James Fallows has two outstanding must-read posts about the Shinseki pick. In the first, Fallows talks about his experience writing his book, Blind into Baghdad, and how he tried -- without success -- to get Shinseki to do the standard Washington thing of placing blame on other people (who even happened, in this case, to deserve it):

Here's one other point that is not as widely known as Rumfeld's and Wolfowitz's bullying of Shinseki: Despite being unfairly treated, despite being 100% vindicated by subsequent events, Shinseki kept his grievances entirely to himself. Although my book contains accounts of Shinseki's inside arguents with Rumsfeld et al, and his discussions with his own staff, zero of that information came from Shinseki.

That is pretty rare inside the power circles in D.C.

Fallows then devotes a post to the political elegance of the pick -- which I want to emphasize. Because this is the rare story of someone who was right, when so many others were wrong, getting a second act in Washington.

Whenever he talks about this selection, Obama (plus his lieutenants) can describe it completely, sufficiently, and strictly in the most bipartisan high-road terms. They have selected a wounded combat veteran; a proven military leader and manager; a model of personal dignity and nonpartisan probity: an unimpeachable choice. Symbolic elements? If people want them, they can work with Shinseki's status as (to my recollection at the moment) the first Asian-American in a military-related cabinet position, not to mention a Japanese-American honored for lifelong military service on Pearl Harbor Day.

As for the other symbolic element -- that Obama is elevating the man who was right, when Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al were so catastrophically wrong -- that is something that neither Obama nor anyone around him need say out loud, ever. The nomination is like a hyper-precision missile, or what is known in politics as a "dog whistle." The people for whom this is a complete slap in the face don't need to be told that. They know -- and know that others know it too. So do the people for whom it is vindication. And all without Obama descending for one second from his bring-us-together higher plane.

The artistry here is remarkable. Along with the inspired nature of this choice.

And as Fallows and others noted, this is precisely what the president-elect did on Meet the Press yesterday. "He was right."

That, and his obvious expertise in managing organizations and his care and love for our Veterans, makes this an outstanding pick that gives me hope that we may start doing much better for the men and women who have served this nation in uniform.

Happy Veterans Day.

I hope the new year will bring better programs and more support for the issues our Veterans face after their brave duty on our behalf.

Ezra Klein writes another excellent post explaining just how myopic it would be for a potential Barack Obama administration to include Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Could we please stop buying into the radical right-wing meme that says we have to go to the daddy party to protect us? As Klein writes:

If Republicans say Democrats can't be trusted to handle national security, and Democrats keep turning to Republicans to handle national security, why should voters question the claim that Democrats aren't to be trusted on national security?

Ding! There are many Democrats who are up to the job -- and Obama, should he win, would do well to remember this fact.

Why does our president believe our military servicemen and servicewomen do not deserve an extra 0.5 percent in pay? How can he possibly feel it is "unnecessary" when we are stretching our military to the breaking point thanks to his ill-advised decision to occupy Iraq 1,850 days after he declared that we had prevailed in the Battle of Iraq?

Of course, only the president and his party support our troops. So, how dare people like me bring up this subject.

So, President Bush just announced that he is going to veto the defense authorization bill he browbeat the Democratic Congress into passing before they left for their holiday break.

Of course, as Digby notes, the president did not object previously to the provisions of the bill that he now claims forces him to use his veto pen. How convenient.

One is forced to wonder just how many times the Democratic leaders in Congress are going to fall for the president's political games. Alas, little about the Democratic response to the president over the past year gives me much confidence in the answer.

Kevin Drum discusses reports that the Bush Administration is seeking to take control over promotions of military lawyers, clearly because they are not pleased that some of them are following their duty to the law rather than follow the dictates of the political leaders.

The Bush, Cheney, Addington axis continues to try to stomp out anyone who dares stand up to them. This gang of political leaders are now trying to politicize military attorneys -- especially since some of them have had the gall to suggest that Guantanamo detainees deserve a fair hearing.

I guess this is more of that infamous support for the troops, eh?

Radical right-wingers, though, will probably see these reports as progress:

• U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War (Washington Post)

• U.S. Scales Back Political Goals in Iraq (New York Times)
  

And, those political goals in Iraq, of course, were the whole point behind the surge. The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi politicians space to reach agreements and show progress. We are not supposed to be alarmed that so little progress has been made while our troops are literally on the firing line?

So, Afghanistan is not going well and Iraq appears to be a situation where no exit is possible. I do not see how this can be anything but depressing news.

Federal budget expert Stan Collender is not impressed by the Secretary of Defense's latest scare tactics:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday became the latest member of the Bush cabinet to say something that can easily be proven wrong to support the White House.

As reported in the Washington Post, Gates said that a delay in getting the funds requested by the president for Iraq and Afghanistan would soon force him to start laying off employees and ceasing operations at bases.

Gates should know better, and should know that someone would quickly call him out on this.

Via TalkLeft, here is another example of what happens when we do not provide the necessary programs for our returning veterans: in this case, he gets addicted to painkillers, robs a pharmacy to try to feed his addiction, and then face California's mandatory minimum sentences.

Make no mistake, this is our national failure to support our Veterans that led to this situation.

Our goal should be for no Veteran to face such choices. Perhaps that is impossible to reach, but after all we ask of our men and women in uniform, no other goal is worthy or acceptable.

The Bush Administration once again proposes a budget that would screw over our Veterans. The only good news here is that even the irresponsible Bushies think their budget is a work of fiction -- designed for political purposes rather than as an actual policy document. The Associated Press' Andrew Taylor explains:

After a $4 billion increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head, even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years. White House budget documents assume that the veterans' medical services budget -- up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget -- can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends, sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better, critics say.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, "or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

What Kevelighan, and the rest of Bush Administration, seems to fail to understand is that either way, they are grossly irresponsible. Budget documents should not be works of fiction. Even in fiction, moreover, our Veterans should not be facing such uncertainty.

Remember this the next time some sanctimonious Republican tries to say that only the GOP cares about the troops. That myth needs to die -- just like the one where the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.

(Hat tip: Atrios)

Kevin Drum links to a story that explains how the president plans to get the troops for the Iraq escalation:

The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

....Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or
Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

In an misguided Republican's mind, I suppose this is considered supporting our troops. I disagree.

IFTF's Future Now's blog links to a new study which explains how a regional nuclear war among emerging nuclear powers could have major impacts on the global climate.

Crooks and Liars' John Amato links to a recap of some of Donald Rumsfeld's most notable quotes. Statements like:

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

You mean he's not on the Moon?

Or, of course, this piece of prognostication about the then-upcoming Iraq War:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Alas, it has taken far longer than six months. Good riddance.

As Josh Marshall explains, Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow shows he does not understand history as he tries to defend the president's dangerous plan to gut the Geneva Conventions.