Winter Soldier 2008: The Human Cost of War

I watched a young man cry the other day. Tears streamed down his face as he described, in vivid detail, the atrocities he both witnessed and participated in, in Iraq. He, alongside other veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was participating in a four-day conference called Winter Soldier.

The point of Winter Soldier, as I saw it, was two-fold. First, it provided a space for these damaged souls to raise their voices and build solidarity, while painting a picture of large-scale, systemic abuse within the military. Secondly, it aimed to grow the resistance movement within the military, a task that, after listening for four days, I realize is incredibly, painfully difficult.

I think about this today in the wake of Justice Sunday 2008, because, more and more, I am thinking about the value of life, the values of our society, and the moral questions this war raises.

This year, UUSC is asking UU congregations around the United States to examine the question: The Cost of Iraq: Who Pays the Price? I am finding, on close examination, that we are all paying the price, both economically and spiritually, for this ever-shifting mess we call the war in Iraq (part of the larger so-called Global War on Terror). Right now, if you examine the financial debt created by this war, there is no argument that, as a society, we will, indeed, pay an economic price for this war. Our kids, and our kids’ kids, will likely be saddled with the $3-5 trillion of debt created for this war.

But to me, far more distressing than this debt is the human toll of this war – the price that those waging this war, on the ground, are paying. After listening to four days of testimony, one thing is clear to me: when it comes to the war in Iraq, abuses within the military are not anomalous episodes that are limited to individual soldiers. They are the result of orders issued from the highest levels of our government.

Below are just a few of the snapshots from Winter Soldier, an event that should be examined by everyone who wants to understand the toll on humanity that this war is exacting.

*****

Dehumanization – Part 1
It was excruciating to hear soldiers’ first-hand experiences. More than once, I had to look down and focus inward, unable to listen to another story about death, destruction, or dehumanization alongside gross illustrations of ignorance and racism.

Take, for example, the way that four soldiers described in detail how they were forced to take pictures of the dead. Not pictures for documentation purposes or for keeping records of those killed in friendly fire, but what soldiers described repeatedly as “trophy photos,” photos of their “kills.” They described not only being congratulated on their first kills, but also being encouraged to photograph the dead, sometimes in front of community and family members, while other soldiers laughed, jeered, and, at times, mutilated the bodies.

When one soldier refused to take such a picture, he was hazed in a variety of cruel and dangerous ways – as punishment, he was given only a half-empty medical kit and not provided the gas mask that all other soldiers in his platoon carried.

Dehumanization – Part 2

There was the story of an 18-year-old soldier who signed up as a “foreign observer.” On September 11, 2001, from the small community he grew up in on Long Island, he had seen smoke rise from the twin towers. Angry, he made the choice to enlist, to fight for the things he held dear, his family, his town, New York, and America. But now, as I looked at him, he was something else entirely – deadened, quiet, pained. Testifying in front of cameras, he wished he could take that day back, that day of anger, when he chose war.

“I was a great soldier once upon a time,” he said. “But now I stand here doing more for my brothers than I ever did there.”

He told a story about pushing humanity’s limits, about dehumanizing the other, about the place that war can take us. Once, he saw a little boy on the side of the street holding up a small stick, as if to indicate a gun. The boy was about six years old, maybe playing at war the way many children do – a real life Iraqi version of cops and robbers, right there with an American soldier. But for the soldier, it was not a game. This soldier, the young man in front of me, told of his internal struggle not to shoot this boy, a six-year-old with nothing more than a stick in his hand. He was angry at this son of Iraq for things he had never done, for things he had nothing to do with.

When he told the audience of not shooting the boy, they stood up and clapped. How far has humanity gone when not shooting a six-year-old with a stick is something we can applaud?

That, in turn, made me cry.

*****

Abuses and the rules of engagement

Over four days, we saw other evidence of a disintegrating moral compass. Take the stories I heard about shovels, which are read by the U.S. military as indicators of Iraqi hostility. According to on-the-ground military protocol, an Iraqi who is simply walking on a road can’t be considered hostile simply by virtue of his or her existence. However, an Iraqi who is carrying a shovel on the road is an entirely different story. The argument is that shovels could be used to bury improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

That’s why, in testimony after testimony, soldiers described how they carried shovels with them, sometimes entire truckfulls. The shovels provided cover in cases where an Iraqi was accidentally killed. By placing one next to him or her, that Iraqi was transformed into a hostile combatant. If the soldiers felt remotely threatened, they knew they could act with impunity – as long as they had a shovel handy. It was that simple.

But, in a country desperately struggling to rebuild, shovels are often necessary. People need to rebuild their homes, their schools, their mosques – and they often have nothing more than the labor their bodies can generate. In a country where shovels are ubiquitous with the effort to rebuild, the idea that a shovel alone indicates hostile intent is more than ironic – it’s criminally absurd.

But what about helping?

Sometimes cruelty came in other forms. We heard testimony about humanitarian rations, which, according to the soldiers I listened to, they were told not to hand out. One soldier told a story of how he was specifically ordered to stop handing out humanitarian rations, and only carry them. At the end of his deployment, on his return to Kuwait, he still had the rations with him. His sergeant told him to bury them. That’s just what he did, heart heavy – he buried the humanitarian rations he’d been carrying around.

Other soldiers told stories of “meals ready to eat,” or MREs, which are equipped with a chemical mechanism that heats the meal. By themselves, outside this meal-heating mechanism, the chemicals are dangerous. Many soldiers talked about giving these chemical packets, without the food, to young children. Others talked about throwing bottles of urine at people on the side of the road, driving their Humvees over the ruins of ancient Babylon, defecating in U.N. headquarters, and, possibly most sad, shooting and bombing mosques for no other reason than that they were there.

*****

Supporting our troops

I also heard the story of attempted suicide. One young man was charged with misconduct when he attempted suicide because, by making the attempt, he prevented his return to Iraq. Once he was dishonorably discharged from service, he lost his ability to get benefits from the army or go to college. He had few options open to him.

He decided to deliver pizzas, but only once a week, because he couldn’t handle more than that. Now, on some days, he gets so drunk he blacks out. That takes care of the pain. Sometimes, instead of going to his job, he spends his day at the VA hospital, begging for help to get him back on his feet. But so far, he’s gotten none.

This was the same man who’d seen the twin towers fall, who on September 11 was looking to kill. And, slowly, he got to the point where the only thing he wanted to do was die. He hated Iraqis, once upon a time. But where is he now?

Our responsibility

Winter Soldier is not a story of good and evil, where everything works out just so. It’s not black and white or us versus them. It’s a story of some of the darkest moments in American history; of systematic racism and imperialism; tradeoffs between human resources and human life; the erosion of faith in the military; and destructive aggression by an occupying power – the United States of America.

But this story is not just their story. It’s our story too, as citizens, as humans. We own this war. We pay for it. We vote for and against it. Few questioned the government when they told us that weapons of mass destruction existed or that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. We listened when they told us that we had to send more troops for the surge. We have failed too.

In the end, this is a story of judgment. It’s a story of coming to terms with anger and frustration towards the troops, who, in many ways, are the machinery that propels this war. It’s the story of my internal struggle with the issue of supporting the troops and what that means. In many ways, Winter Soldier helped me realize that it’s the troops who are leading this movement against the war, that they own this resistance movement.

Bumper stickers and flags are not actions of support; no, supporting the troops means listening to those who have waged this war, and then responding to what they need and what they know.

And, it’s up to us to do this.

So, look at it, watch the testimony, and hear for yourself.

A Beam of Justice Shines Down on Belmont

On an early spring morning, the day outside bright and clear, UUSC Civil Liberties Program Manager Wayne Smith stood at the pulpit of the First Church in Belmont, Unitarian Universalist, in Belmont, Mass., for Justice Sunday. Against the backdrop of a Tiffany window, through which the late March sun shone its beams, Smith got ready to speak, his face and figure limned by the glow of the chalice flame that burned before him.

Reminiscent of a prophet of old, he delivered a jeremiad, asking what we are prepared to do to help those whose lives have been forever changed by the Iraq war. Though he paid a great deal of attention to the people who’ve borne the most immediate costs of the war – members of the U.S. military and their families and the people of Iraq – his overarching point was unmistakable: all of us are paying for this war.

In building his case, Smith cited a list of figures that describe in concrete terms exactly what the dollars spent on the war could have paid for in terms of domestic needs. For the $3 trillion that this war is now estimated to cost, how many millions of Americans could have been provided health care? How many elementary schools could we have built, and how many teachers to staff those schools hired? (Click here to learn more.) Broken down like this, astronomical (and highly abstract) figures like billions and trillions of dollars become more comprehensible, enabling us to grasp the full scope of what has been lost.

*****

After the service, Smith and fellow speaker Camilo Mejía met with interested congregants for an open, back-and-forth discussion. One congregant raised an interesting point: while she noted the effectiveness of describing the financial cost of the war in terms of forgone social benefits, she reminded the group that the government has financed the war using borrowed money. To the extent that these funds are, in some measure, nonexistent, she wondered about the accuracy of drawing comparisons of the kind that UUSC and others have made. These “could-have-been” assessments may give people the impression that, but for the war, the government would have provided social programs.

As UUSC’s communications director, I’ve given a great deal of thought to this point. Intellectually, I agree with her. These social benefits would not have been provided, because the money to pay for them (or the war, for that matter) only exists as a gigantic footprint of debt. Moreover, if history is any guide, it’s highly unlikely that a Republican administration would have engaged in such astronomical amounts of borrowing to pay for social programs.

As a first response, I would say that to preserve intellectual honesty and rhetorical precision, it is important for us to use the operative verb “could have,” as Smith and others representing UUSC have done, and not “would have.”

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, while it’s true that our government would not have placed a $3 trillion charge on the nation’s credit card in order to provide social programs, that it did so to pay for a war that’s gone terribly wrong is an irrefutable fact. This year, with UUSC’s focus on the Iraq war, on Justice Sunday and at the UUA General Assembly 2008, we are asking Unitarian Universalists, and all concerned Americans, to consider how this reality squares with their values. Does this reflect the priorities of “we, the people of the United States,” to whom is assigned the singular responsibility of ensuring that our government remains by, for, and of the people?

Freedom of inquiry and thought, values of both Unitarian Universalism and our democratic society, oblige us to consider this question – and more: to take action once we’ve found our answer.

Two Sides of the Coin

There has been an incredible amount of energy here at GA around UUSC's Drumbeat for Darfur campaign and the work to end the Darfur genocide. But there is another issue that is very much on people's minds here in Portland, Ore., and that's the war in Iraq.

This afternoon, the UU Peace Fellowship presented Camilo Mejia with its Adin Ballou Peace Award, given annually to someone who has made a significant contribution to advancing the cause of peace in the world. After five months of service in Iraq, Mejia came to the conclusion that he could not and would not support the Iraq war. For letting his conscience be his guide, he served one year in military prison for refusing further duty in Iraq.

During his time in Iraq, one of Mejia's jobs was to "soften" Iraqi prisoners, many of whom he knew to be innocent civilians. He became disgusted with this abuse and could no longer stomach the things he was asked to do. His compassion grew, but at first he felt powerless to act.

"In the face of the abuse of the dignity of the Iraqi people, I remained paralyzed and kept my mouth shut," he said. "But a change was taking place inside of me. Not because of how the war was affecting me, but because of how the war was affecting the people of Iraq."

"We're doing the Iraqi people a disservice if we turn away from the horror," added Charlie Clements, UUSC's president.

Mejia was adamant that we have to stand up for what we believe in, and fiercely defended the right of our service men and women to do so. "It is not only our right to refuse to fight," he said, "it's our legal duty. It's our moral duty to humanity to refuse and resist."

Millions of Iraqi civilians have been displaced now. It's a humanitarian crisis that is growing daily, and who better to bear witness than someone like Mejia, who has been there. He is asking us to bear witness with him to two sides of the same of coin that is Iraq: by supporting the rights of the people in that nation, and supporting the rights of our troops who, like him, are trying to right what they have seen as a terrible wrong.

What’s a Little War Profiteering among Friends?

Blackwater, a Private Military Company (PMC), is the scariest thing you haven’t heard of. They bill themselves, on their website, as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world.” And, apparently, the Bush administration agrees.

In a recent (and disturbing) new novel, Jeremy Scahill talks about Blackwater and its rise to power, its uncanny ability to win no-bid government contracts in places like Iraq and New Orleans, and its utter lack of accountability in its missions. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg -- Blackwater is emblematic of the rise in the private contracting of war and the hefty profits it reaps.

Maybe you heard about Blackwater briefly, when four of their men were killed in Fallujah, Iraq, their bodies dragged down the streets, burned, and then hung from bridges in town. These were the deaths that began a massive ‘counter insurgency’ in the Iraq war. But, these deaths don’t count towards the official tally of U.S. personnel killed in Iraq -- in many ways, they aren’t counted at all.

Herein lies the problem. Blackwater, as well as many other Private Military Companies, have an unknown number of people working as military contractors in Iraq -- but estimates are around 100,000. They function like U.S. military but are not held to the same rules of conduct. This is particularly distressing in light of tragedies like Abu Ghraib, a disgusting abuse of power in which PMCs were key players.

In the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, a small amount of checks were put on PMCs, an attempt by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to start the ball rolling on holding these contractors remotely accountable for their actions. But, this legislation isn’t enough. Holding accountable PMCs is only one part of the equation -- the other is addressing the massive amount of profits that are a by-product of privatizing war, as well as relief efforts.

Profits reaped by Blackwater and other military contractors are in the billions of dollars. In post-Katrina New Orleans, individual PMCs were paid thousands of dollars a day to "maintain order." In the Iraq war, PMCs are estimated to account for forty cents of every dollar. That’s forty cents of every dollar going to people who are in no way accountable to laws of military conduct, not to mention the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and if Blackwater scares you, just think about some of these other private military contractors. There is KBR, CACI, Raytheon, SCG International Risk, SOS Temps, Pathfinder Security Services, Top Cat Marine Security, STOP units, Triple Canopy, Titan Corporation, ManTech International, and Vinnell Corporation, to name a few.

The privatization of war and the profits it creates is a relatively new phenomenon. And Blackwater, unfortunately, isn’t alone. We hear about war profiteering to some extent. What we need to be hearing is that private war profiteers are making a killing -- literally and figuratively -- on the backs of Americans and Iraqis alike.

If it bothers you, tell your legislator. Tell them that you want PMCs to be traced, accounted for, and accountable. Tell them that you don’t want your money going to people who answer to no one.

Another Major Blow to the War in Iraq But a Victory for Justice!

In what can only be described as a stunning victory for defenders of free speech and military opponents to the war in Iraq, yesterday, a military judge declared a mistrial in the court martial of U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren Watada.

By any standards, Lt. Ehren Watada was called an exemplary soldier. But then he decided to face court martial rather than join a war he called "illegal."

As a matter of conscience, Lt. Watada refused deployment to Iraq and, because of his strong moral beliefs, he risked his military career and the possibility of years in prison. Truly a patriot, Lt. Watada was deeply torn between "loyalty to the military and his soldiers" versus his belief in truth and honor. In the end, he chose to speak truth-to-power and decided to "not send his soldiers to their deaths in a war that he believed was illegal."

The military brought the full weight of its power against this proud soldier and lost! Clearly, Judge John Head's ruling the case a mistrial is a major blow. Now, the prosecution of Lt. Watada is in free-fall.

Because Lt. Watada's defense team opposed the mistrial and because it was endorsed by the prosecution, the door is now open to Lt. Watada for a double-jeopardy defense. Double jeopardy, which forbids a person from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply only after a verdict is rendered, but can apply after a jury is empaneled and witnesses have been called.

Double jeopardy protection is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and it certainly applies to citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the military thinks soldiers should be covered by the Constitution.

Democracy in Action

"Ask about democracy?"
"This is our democracy!"

"Am I right or wrong?
"You're right!"

"Are we going strong?"
"We're strong!"

"Sound off?"
"One, two!"

"Sound off?"
"three, four!"

"Bring it on home?"
"One two, three, four - One, two, three, four!"

So went the chant and refrain of more than 100,000 (some estimated as many as 400,000) people of conscience who journeyed to our nation's capital for this weekend's massive march on Washington. We gathered on the National Mall, between the front of the Capitol building and the Washington Monument, to demand peace, justice, and an end to the war in Iraq.

In what can only be described as democracy in action, the National Mall was awash in a sea of humanity: black, white, and brown people from around the nation and world. There were people wearing tie-dye and pin stripes! I even saw a smattering of signs declaring Republicans for Withdrawal from Iraq!

A distinguished group of speakers included active duty military (who spoke truth to power), families of soldiers killed in Iraq, clergy, students, human rights activists, and members of Congress. Robert Watada, the father of Lt. Ehren Watada (currently on trial for refusing to fight in the Iraq War) spoke with passion and pride for his son's courageous "refusal to serve in and illegal and immoral war."

After listening to a host of speakers, we marched and sang from the front of the Capitol, past federal agencies and congressional offices, past the U.S. Supreme Court and Library of Congress, the Botanic Gardens and back to the National Mall. Beautiful black, white, and brown children carried signs calling for a shutdown of Guantanamo Bay prison, and Palestinians and Jews marched together for peace in the Middle East.

Not since opposition to the war in Vietnam have so many active duty soldiers, sailors, and veterans voiced their opposition to war. Declaring themselves patriots, these active duty soldiers and sailors spoke for their buddies who could not speak because they're either in Iraq, wounded, or dead.

These soldiers spoke, knowing they were putting their military careers on the line, but for them, it is a matter of principle. Although, military regulations allow active-duty service members to speak their minds -- short of disrespect for the commanders or the president -- some have claimed retaliation from their superiors.

Beyond the newly Democratic Congress, a new day is on the rise. The American people have a new sense of optimism.

Coming from the frigid Northeast, even the weather was on our side -- the temperature in D.C., was a mild 53 degrees. Along with the warm sun and blue skies, the optimism of the people made it feel like early spring.

Clearly, this is a new day and democracy is on the move.

Guilty until Proven Innocent

Innocent until proven guilty. It has a nice ring to it. But it’s a hollow ring for those at Guantanamo Bay. For five years, innocent until proven guilty has been a battle cry of human rights defenders against Guantanamo – and an ironic statement for those within its walls.

Last night, in protests around the world, people joined together in calling for the close of Guantanamo. UUSC staff members joined with Amnesty International to hold a vigil in front of Cambridge City Hall in Cambridge, Mass.

Today, more than 400 detainees, none of whom have been tried, are captives of Guantanamo. They are the lost victims of a war with unclear goals and even less clear means.

And, these aren’t ordinary prisoners. Unlike citizens on trial in this country, these prisoners are not innocent until proven guilty. Last year, Congress stripped the right of habeas corpus, or the ability to challenge the legality of detention in a court of law, from those detainees at Guantanamo. What that means is, essentially, those prisoners are guilty until proven innocent.

The legislation went one step further – it eliminated the right to habeas corpus for all non-citizens whom the executive branch declared to be “unlawful enemy combatants.” In the United States alone, that could be any one of the 11 million non-citizens who live on our shores.

Supporters of the bill claim that this is the price we pay to win the “War on Terror.” But at what cost? Stripped of their rights, charged with nothing, forced to exist for five years within the walls of Guantanamo . . . would our administration still be convinced of the merits of this price?

It’s only the price they are willing for others to pay.

The prisoners of Guantanamo have been languishing for over five years. They have missed the births of children and the deaths of loved ones. They have been stripped of their right to recourse, and treated as “The Enemy.” They are the price we are paying.

Some say that winning the “War on Terror” is worth any cost. The cost in this case is lost innocence.

Bush Digs the Hole Deeper

Well, the worst-kept secret of the new year is officially out: George Bush is convinced that more troops and more money can pull a victory out of the fire in Iraq.

It isn't hard to understand. If there is one chance in 20 that this will work, then it is a simple choice for him. That 1 in 20 bet certainly looks a lot better than withdrawing in defeat. In any event, an escalation of the war will probably mean that the next president will be the one to evacuate the Green Zone.

At least some of the U.S. trainers working with the Iraqi army doubt that 20,000 new troops will make a difference where it most matters: In the ability of the Iraqi army to take over this war and stabilize their own country. While I don't agree with army trainers on everything, it is hard to argue with them on this one.

The Democratic leadership in Congress seems ready to fight Bush on this escalation, and some on the Republican side are interested enough in getting re-elected to join them. Bravo! The larger question is whether or not they are ready to push for a plan to end this war. The signals are less clear on that one.

Regardless of the haze in D.C., people around the country seem ready to speak more clearly. The Win Without War coalition is using new and old media to organize a campaign to answer the Bush plan with an immediate and resounding NO! The coalition is not just demanding that no more troops go to Iraq . . . it also insists on a plan for a safe, secure withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2007.

If you agree, go to the website put together for the No More Troops! campaign and enter your zip code. You'll be shown a list of events happening Thursday in your area. If there isn't one happening near you, organize one! There are more events listed in my area each time I go to the site. I note proudly that many Unitarian Universalist and other progressive congregations are hosting events.

The War in Iraq: Who Wants or Needs Another Study?

Without acknowledging the universal truth -- that is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed -- President Bush, in April 2006, commissioned the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to examine war policies and make recommendations.

The bipartisan panel, cochaired by James Baker, former secretary of state to former president George Herbert Walker Bush and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), is a blue-ribbon collection of Washington insiders. Not one single member of the ISG opposed the war in Iraq.

Just a few days before the ISG issued their much-anticipated report, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded the length of time it took to win World War II. On the day the ISG presented its 142-page report to President Bush, his cabinet, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the American people, 70 Iraqis were killed along with 10 American soldiers.

On the very same day, the U.S. Senate, on a 95-2 vote, confirmed former CIA Director Robert Gates as secretary of defense, replacing the disgraced Donald Rumsfeld.

The ISG report, titled "The Way Forward," is nothing less than a total repudiation of the Bush administration’s military and diplomatic approach to Iraq and the whole region. It listed 79 recommendations that can only be thought of as a U-turn away from the Bush administration’s “stay the course” policy.

President Bush told members of the ISG, “We will read this report and take these recommendations seriously.” The report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq and it brings some very interesting proposals. While the president said he would give the report serious consideration, he said he did not intend to accept all 79 recommendations. “Congress isn’t going to accept every recommendation in the report,” Mr. Bush said, “and neither will the administration.”

In a tone that almost scolded the administration, the first page of the report asserted “our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people.” Key recommendations include withdrawing U.S. troops not specifically dedicated to the training and support mission in Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, engage in U.S. talks with Iran and Syria, and deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.

Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the few U.S. senators who voted against the war, called the ISG report “a classic Washington compromise.” Feingold, as many others observes, believes the 2006 election was a vote to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Others have said, in effect, the ISG report keeps U.S. troops there indefinitely.

In calling the war in Iraq “grave and deteriorating,” the ISG asks the American people to support the report and accept its recommendations, while admitting doing so is “a tough sell.” In effect, the report seems to ask the American people to give Iraq and the administration “one last chance” to get it right.

Gone are the days when President Bush and war planners believe they can “bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East.” Today, the Bush administration defines victory as “Iraq’s ability to defend itself.”

There was that one moment when I thought I heard President Bush call it “Vietnamization” but I am sure he meant "Iraqification."

One Woman's Dream: A World of Successful Women

In 1993, a young woman had a dream of helping other women who, like her, were victimized by war. A mere 14 years later, her dream has become reality and recently, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation has honored her as a great humanitarian.

Vivid memories of growing up in Iraq and -- after coming to the United States -- images of women who had been raped in Bosnia and Croatia guided her to make a difference in the lives of women living in war zones. With love and support from her courageous family and friends, Zainab Salbi began to live her dream. She envisioned a world where women would become empowered, where they could aquire the necessary skills and resources to move from "crisis and poverty to stability and self-sufficiency to in turn promote viable civil societies."

Fueled by her vision and passion, the dream was shared and Women for Women International was born. When Women for Women needed a place to grow, Zainab walked into All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Washington, D.C., and found a temporary home. When looking for resources, Zainab called UUSC, spoke with our colleague Jackie Ladd who, along with others, provided Women for Women with one of their first and most significant grants. As they say, "the rest is history."

UUSC is proud of the work that Women for Women International has accomplished and we see them as a model for the kind of program partnership that is the hallmark of UUSC's strategic agenda.

Recently, Women for Women honored UUSC by sending three of their most distinguished country directors to visit UUSC's offices. President Charlie Clements and the entire UUSC staff warmly welcomed our friends from Rwanda, Sudan, and Kosovo, and we took a moment to celebrate their legacy of success.

At the Conrad Hilton Award's ceremony in New York City, Women for Women went out of their way to thank and recognize UUSC's early and sustained support of their work. Eric Kreilick and I had the good fortune to represent UUSC and to spend time with Vaclav Havel, Liv Ullmann, and other notable humanitarians.

Currently, Women for Women's Iraq project is a UUSC Civil Liberties Program partner.

A "Political Windsock"

One of the best things that happened in this important week was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. But before we could even get the needles out of our dolls, President Bush nominated a replacement, Robert Gates.

As you might have expected, Bush has nominated someone cut from the same cloth as his predecessor. Gates has a long history in U.S. intelligence establishment, having served as an assistant to CIA Director William Casey during the entire illegal operation that came to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Gates became known within the agency as someone able to manipulate intelligence findings to serve the policy goals of his political bosses. As such, he rose quickly within the system, becoming the minion entrusted by Casey with the preparation of nearly all of his speeches, briefings and testimony. Speaking on Democracy Now, ex-CIA analyst Melvin Goodman called Gates a "political windsock," always dutifully pointing in the direction of the strongest political winds at the CIA.

Ronald Reagan nominated Gates to head the CIA in 1987, but the public opposition was so strong that the administration had to withdraw the nomination. Gates did become CIA Director in 1991, but an unprededented 31 Senators voted against the nomination when it came to the Senate floor.

Now, as president of Texas A&M University (go Aggies!), Gates has served on the famous bipartisan commission reviewing the Bush policy in Iraq. Clearly, he comes to the Pentagon with instructions to carry out some of the course corrections recommended by that commission.

But is this the time for a political windsock at the Pentagon? The country desperately needs real intelligence leading to a new Iraq policy, rather than a Defense Secretary schooled in intelligence as political spin. Unfortunately, it looks as though the lame ducks will limp through the confirmation process and give Gates the big chair at the Pentagon before the year ends. If so, it won't take a lot to know which way the wind is blowing in Washington.

More Truth About President Bush, Iraq, and Vietnam

Last week, I emphasized President Bush's "metaphysical" transformation in "Bush Goes to Vietnam." While acknowledging certain similarity between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq, I pointed out that Vietnam was not a perfect metaphor.

This time, it's real. Imagine my surprise in reading that President Bush is actually going to Vietnam! That is right, friends -- on November 17, six days after Veteran's Day, President Bush will finally go to Vietnam . . . to attend a conference!

As a Vietnam veteran, I have lamented mistakes made in that war and the failure of government officials to learn from those mistakes. In Iraq, missteps continue to be made by President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (e.g., the use of "body counts," etc., as a way to report so-called progress). Many of us were equally troubled by an ABC News interview in which President Bush compared the growing Iraqi civil war to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam.

Last week, I cried when writing about the deaths of 71 American soldiers and the reported deaths of 655,000 Iraqis as of October 19. Today, more than 90 American soldiers have been killed and the month is not over.

The real shocker was the return of Henry Kissinger who, according to Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, is re-fighting the Vietnam War by advising Bush and Cheney about Iraq.

Of small consolation, some of my more cynical friends will no longer be able to "joke": "What is the difference between Jane Fonda and George Bush? At least Jane went to Vietnam."

Bush Goes to Vietnam

By that, I mean he has done so in the metaphysical sense.

After years of denying any comparison, President Bush has crossed a historic and psychological threshold by finally admitting what many of us have known and feared for years, that is, the haunting similarity between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

I will be the first to acknowledge that Vietnam is not a perfect metaphor for the War in Iraq. However, for those of us who lived through “the Vietnam experience” in silence and, to those who are in a state of denial about the War in Iraq, shame on us.

I am a former combat medic who spent 18 months in Vietnam. I am also a baseball fan. As I watch the meltdown taking place in Iraq, I am not only reminded of Vietnam but also the immortal words by baseball great Yogi Berra when he said “this is like déjà vu all over again.”

News that 70 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, so far, since October 1, has astounded me. When it was reported that Henry Kissinger was “advising” President Bush on the War in Iraq, I swear, it felt like I was having heart palpitations.

Vietnam-era debate about “body count” has also returned. An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the U.S.-led invasion, according to a survey by a U.S. university. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimates that the mortality rates have more than doubled since the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, causing an average of 500 deaths a day. In the past, Mr. Bush has put the civilian death toll in Iraq at 30,000, and hours after details of the latest research were published he dismissed the researchers' methodology as "pretty well discredited".

I felt an overwhelming sense of betrayal by recent headlines that proclaimed “Army and Other Ground Forces Meet '06 Recruiting Goals." Sadly, the headlines omitted the not-so-small fact that the military has “lowered” its standards to reach that goal. By lowering its aptitude standards, the Army reached its goal of 80,000 new recruits. Of that total, 13,600 were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems.

Modern military recruiting began with Richard M. Nixon’s presidential campaign promise to end the draft. However, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara similarly lowered standards in a program known as Project 100,000. The Nixon administration believed it was an effective way to reach their goal for “replacements” and they eventually ensnared about 350,000 “new soldiers.” Today, many of those individuals still struggle with wartime experiences.

Now that President Bush has gone to Vietnam, the question remains, what are the American people going to do about it?