[War’s] glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families … It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war to our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

   -William Tecumseh Sherman

On March 19, 2003, Pres. George W. Bush declared war against Iraq and the US attacked that country.  Six weeks later and exactly five years ago today, Bush landed a fighter jet onboard an aircraft carrier, far from any dangers of real battle, and declared “Mission Accomplished.” He appeared almost giddy from the excitement of his most excellent adventure.

 “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

 — George W. Bush

Today, on that anniversary, Lt. Col. (Air Force Ret.) Charlie Brown appeared at a townhall meeting for veterans accompanied by former Army Capt. and Sen. Max Cleland.  Both Charlie Brown and Max Cleland served in Vietnam; indeed, that’s where Cleland had both legs and his right arm blown off by a grenade.

This morning, they had a more sober assessment of our foreign policy, the use of our military and our responsibilities to veterans.  Here’s what Sen. Cleland had to say:

“We need to send somebody to Washington who knows the difference between right and wrong.  We need to send somebody to Washington who has actually heard and felt the sound of battle, somebody who has felt the bullets flying past them… who knows what it’s like to be shot at.  Something you learn after that is that war is not to be prosecuted for anything less than the vital national interest.  It’s not something you do willy-nilly… war costs the life and limb of people, the best we have, and it must be well considered before it’s entered into.“

Of course, most of us realize that Pres. Bush has a slightly different take on war. Just two months ago, with over 4,000 dead and nearly 30,000 wounded, in a conference call with our troops in Iraq, Bush made the following statement:

“It must be exciting for you… in some ways romantic.”

And yet after five long years, a recent Pew Research poll tells us that a mere 28% of Americans even know that approximately 4,000 of our troops have been killed in Iraq.  Even fewer know about the shabby treatment that our veterans have been receiving from the federal government.  Once again, here’s what Max Cleland had to say:

We are so quick to go to war and so slow to take care of those who won the battle.

And here’s Charlie Brown, talking about the debt we owe to those who have served our country:

This mission is never accomplished; it’s ongoing.  It’s about accountability.

What is wrong with our country that we are not taking care of our veterans?  Any number of bills, whether it’s the new GI Bill, the increase in medical benefits, are being defeated… why are we not keeping our promise to the troops?

What has happened to the American dream? All of us who thought if we defended our country, we thought our country would take care of us. What has happened to our country?

Patriotism is meaningful to those who serve. We took an oath to serve; we took an oath to get results. And that’s what we expect from our leaders.  It’s time to hold our elected leaders responsible to do their job, hold them responsible to get some results.  We did that in the military. We should expect nothing less from our leaders.

On this five-year anniversary of Mission Accomplished, these are questions that all Americans should be asking. Something tells me if we send more real patriots like Charlie Brown to Washington this November, we’ll start getting the answers to some of those questions.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

There was some question whether or not this would actually happen, but I’m proud of the ILWU for putting principles first and pulling this off.

Thousands of dockworkers at all 29 West Coast ports, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, took the day off work today in what their union called a protest of the war in Iraq, effectively shutting down operations at the busy complexes.

The action came two months before the contract expires between the dockworkers, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents port operators and large shippers, many of them foreign-owned.

“We are supporting the troops and telling politicians in Washington that it’s time to end the war in Iraq,” said union President Bob McEllrath.

This is the first major general strike against the war I can think of in my personal memory.  Two years ago most truckers stayed away on May Day to protest immigration policy and attend rallies in LA.  But this is the entire west coast of the US and Canada.

The longshoremen understand what our politicians must: this war is immoral, unnecessary, catastrophic, and damaging to our national character.  It needs to end.

(This is also why a strong labor movement needs to be sustained.  Not only does it provide an engine to upward mobility for the working class, it takes the role of our national conscience.)

UPDATE: Here’s an example of why the ILWU is out in the streets today.

Sgt. 1st Class David L. McDowell, 30, of Ramona, California died Tuesday in Afghanistan of “wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked using small arms fires.” The San Diego Tribune reports, “He had been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq seven times and was a recipient of two Bronze stars and a Purple Heart.”

Seven tours of duty.  No end in sight.  What a tragedy.

In last year’s front page Washington Post story on Ellen Tauscher, Iraq took center stage:

[Tauscher] then raced to catch the last minutes of an Armed Services Committee hearing, just in time to question Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As five women from the antiwar group Code Pink stood in protest, Tauscher asked two quick questions: Why didn’t Bush’s budget increase production of the C-17, a plane based at Travis? And how much would the president’s troop increase cost?

[…]

But Code Pink activist Zanne Joi, whose shirt read “Stop Funding, Start Impeaching,” was not impressed. She said she was horrified that Tauscher hadn’t challenged Gates about Iraq, that she had treated the increase as a done deal. “We need her to stand up and end this war,” said Joi.

Interestingly, at the Petraeus hearing last week, it was Tauscher with the most interesting line of questioning. And two weeks ago, at what was billed as a “major address” before the Contra Costa Council, Ellen Tauscher went hard against Iraq:

A former stockbroker rated as a political moderate by the National Journal, Tauscher is well-liked at the Contra Costa Council, a group largely made up of dues-paying business leaders.

But her ardent Iraq war views engendered limited vocal enthusiasm among the more conservative crowd.

That did not slow Tauscher, who devoted at least half of her speech to Iraq.

Back to the Washington Post story, remember this?

But Kos points to Harman as a perfect example of how the Net roots can keep Democrats in line. He said Harman used to be a constant irritant, a go-to quote for reporters looking for a Democrat to tweak liberals — until she had to fight off a primary challenge from the left in 2006. “She’s been great ever since,” he said. Now Harman even writes on the liberal Huffington Post blog.

Kos can imagine a day when Tauscher still holds her seat but is no longer distasteful to the left. “That’s what victory would look like — a more responsive representative,” he said. So when Tauscher praises Pelosi as “perfect on substance, perfect on optics,” it’s hard to know if that’s a result of personal evolution, political trends, or blogospheric pressure, but it’s music to Kos’s ears. It’s helpful to Democratic leaders, too.

Said Rosenthal, the Working for Us founder: “We want them to understand what we’re doing helps and enhances the majority.”

Indeed.

(I was happy to co-host this event last night.  After a day where there was a lot of sturm und drang among the grassroots, what I remember about this week is the incredible events I’ve been fortunate enough to witness, both with Tim Goodrich and last night with Darcy Burner.  The grassroots is strong when we are all working for incredible candidates who can bring about progressive change. – promoted by David Dayen)

I met Darcy Burner for the second time last night.

It was pretty exciting, meeting a future president.  If you have to ask why I would say that, why, then, you haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Darcy Burner.  

Darcy is running for Congress in Washington’s 8th District against Republican incumbent Dave Reichert.

The first time I met Darcy was at YearlyKos last summer. Kossack maeve raved to me about this woman I had to meet – maeve assured me that she was going to be president someday. I was afraid of what would happen if I ran into maeve again and hadn’t managed to meet Darcy, so I tracked her down.

Darcy and I exchanged only a few words in a crowded, noisy bar/restaurant in Chicago, where she had ventured with some other Kossacks/constituents, but I was immediately struck by her directness and complete lack of “veneer,” as some would say. She has that ability shared by the greatest politicians of putting you at ease and making you feel as if you are the only person in the room. She is approachable and engaging. And teh smart.

Even at that brief encounter, I sensed that here was a person who would do in politics whatever she put her mind to.  

That was the first time I met Darcy Burner.

I was fortunate enough last night to attend a little fundraising event organized by Dante Atkins (hekebolos), David Dayen and Courage Campaign‘s Rick Jacobs, among others, in Los Angeles. Darcy was the featured guest at the event; two other netroots congressional candidates, Ron Shepston of CA-42 and Mary Pallant of CA-24.

Darcy told the story of how she came to be involved in politics: In 2003, around the time her son was born, her brother was being shipped off to Iraq.  Darcy thought about the state of the country and the state of the world, and realized that no matter what choices she might make for her son as he grew up, unless a dramatic change took place in the direction the nation was heading – well, she did not like her choices.

So, as she likes to say, she did what any responsible American parent would do: she decided to run for Congress.

She started with zero name recognition, but ran a textbook campaign and almost toppled Republican incumbent Dave Reichert.

Although Darcy came up short in her 2006 bid – but only by a little; five voters per precinct, to be exact, as she will remind you – she put a very big scare into the Republican Party.  So much of a scare, in fact, that George Bush and Karl Rove both have visited Darcy’s district in an effort to raise money for the Republican incumbent, Dave Reichert.  (She also will remind you, with a smile, that when an online counter-fundraiser was held last fall to offset the Bush $1,000-a-plate event for Reichert, 3200 donors contributed $123,000, outraising the president himself.)

Heh.

The Republicans have good reason to fear Darcy. She is truly formidable. She is smart, funny, personable, smart, down-to-earth, disarming, humble, smart, compassionate, self-effacing and smart.

Even though Darcy lost her congressional bid in 2006, she was excited by the fact that the Democrats had taken control of both houses of Congress.  She looked forward to a rapid end to the occupation of Iraq, given that so much Democratic rhetoric in the election campaign had been about the Democrats’ intention to make that happen.

But once the 110th Congress had been in session for a few months and it became evident that, in fact, the Democratic majority lacked the political will to actually bring an end to the illegal occupation, Darcy, in her customary way, decided to take matters into her own hands.

She came to realize that the Democrats, despite their good intentions, lacked an actual plan to end the occupation; none had ever put forth by the majority party. Darcy, possessing the logical mind of the computer geek that she is, correctly reasoned that the without such a plan, the likelihood of an end to the occupation was extremely remote at best.

And this is where she and the Democratic incumbents parted ways: She was thinking rationally; they were thinking politically.

Which is why the Democratic majority in Congress has never had the courage to put forth a specific, sensible plan to end the illegal occupation of Iraq.

But Darcy – a Democratic challenger to an incumbent Republican – does have the courage.

Which is why she decided to write a plan – it seemed the obvious thing to do, as obvious as her decision to run for Congress. In her usual, sensible way, she consulted with some of the top minds available regarding the occupation of Iraq, including retired General Paul Eaton.  She brainstormed and consulted and discussed and pondered.  And then she sat down to write.  

The result of her work is A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, a 36-page manifesto that lays out in detail the “how” of extricating the United States from the morass that it has created for itself in Iraq.

Our plan will:

1. End U.S. Military Action in Iraq

2. Use U.S. diplomatic power

3. Address humanitarian concerns

4. Restore our Constitution

5. Restore our military

6. Restore independence to the media

7. Create a new, U.S.-centered energy policy

If you haven’t read it, you should.

So far, 54 courageous Democratic congressional candidates have shown the courage to endorse The Plan, including Ron Shepston (happy birthday, Ron!) and Mary Pallant.

These people are serious about getting the United States out of Iraq.

They have the courage of their convictions.

And they have The Plan.

And we have Darcy.

I feel really good about that.

UPDATED: To reflect David’s hosting of the event! (Mea culpa, David – please forgive me!)

On the web:

Darcy Burner for Congress

Blue Majority ActBlue page

Race tracker wiki: WA-08

Ron Shepston for Congress

Mary Pallant for Congress

Cross-posted from Big Orange

(Let’s keep our eyes on the ball here, people. – promoted by David Dayen)

It’s been another interesting week in Washington, with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker asking Congress to maintain current troops levels.  Their plea comes despite the lack of security stabilization and political progress by the Iraqi government.

The conditions in Iraq continue to worsen. Newly released figures by the military indicate that the number of attacks against civilians and American and Iraqi security forces in Baghdad have more than doubled in March over the previous month.  There has also been an increase of sectarian violence in other large cities and provinces. The Green Zone has become the target of a wave of increased violence and casualties.  Our troops and our nation continue to make sacrifices for an Iraq that is unable to secure its people and unwilling to reach political reconciliation.        

Meanwhile, the cost of staying the failed course in Iraq continues to take a toll on our troops, their families, the American taxpayers, our national security, and our homeland defense readiness.  The war on Iraq has claimed the lives of nearly 4,017 and close to 30,000 servicemen and women have been injured or permanently disabled.  More than half of those will not be able to lead a normal life because of the severity of their injuries impacting not only them but also their families.  Yet, we continue to burden our troops and their families with the all too common multiple tours of duty and extended 15 month tours. Since the war in Iraq began, we have spent more than $500 billion, unnecessarily risking financial security and reducing needed domestic investments in priorities such as health care and education.  

The American people are frustrated and want a new direction in Iraq and an end to the war.  I agree.  This grave situation requires a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq, one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with neighboring countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, and one that supports our service men and women by redeploying them from Iraq – not a strategy to keep more of our men and women in harm’s way. I will continue to work with my colleagues to bring an end to this war and bring our troops home.

Mary Pallant’s support of the Responsible Plan marks the fifth Congressional challenger in California to endorse.  At Calitics, we feel that this is a plan that not only makes sense for Congressional candidates but progressive organizations and grassroots groups as well.  Therefore, the editorial board of Calitics proudly endorse the Responsible Plan and urge all candidates for federal office in the state to follow suit, be they challengers or incumbents.

Given the current situation in Iraq, leaving 60,000 or 80,000 troops to babysit the Iraqis will do about as much as having 160,000 troops do the same; in other words, nothing at all (Russ Feingold understands this).  There is no military solution and the goals of the surge have not been met; indeed what meager gains have been established have now essentially vanished, as Basra, Baghdad and beyond grow more violent.  Until the fundamental question – whether a continued presence in Iraq is making us safer now and in the future – is addressed, we’re doing nothing but spinning our wheels.  Keeping troops in the region to try and put a lid on violence until George Bush is safely tucked away creates a huge moral hazard which actually increases the potential for chaos.

The Responsible Plan reflects the opinion of a significant wing of the Democratic Party which is simply not willing to wait around anymore while the leadership in Washington tries to come up with a coherent endgame strategy.  Well over 50 Congressional challengers have endorsed the plan, understanding that a comprehensive strategy to end the war and repair the broken institutions that enabled it not only makes political sense but is absolutely vital to our national security.  Ilan Goldenberg sums up the plan nicely.

For the past two years, Democrats have been offering plan after plan to end the war in Iraq. But this one is different. As opposed to the usual broad language, combined with a laundry list of policy proposals that make up traditional party platforms, the plan has a sharp focus, with a clear strategic logic focused around two fundamental principles. First, the United States must find a way to sensibly end its military mission in Iraq–and use the political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools at its disposal to mitigate the negative consequences of the war. Second, the Iraq War has done irreparable damage not just to Iraq but to our country, and the time has come to reform our institutions and put the checks and balances in place to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated […]

“A Responsible Plan” would instead serve as the congressional corollary to a Democratic presidency. It doesn’t include elements over which Congress has little control, but it does push for 15 pieces of existing legislation, which focus on issues such as improving healthcare for a new generation of veterans and phasing out our reliance on military contractors such as Blackwater. Only the president can end the war in Iraq, but Congress can do its share by focusing on institutional repair and funding the right programs.

This approach is apparent in the most creative part of the document, titled “Preventing Future Iraqs.” These policies focus on checking presidential authority and ensuring that Congress can’t easily give the president a free hand to go to war. It calls for incorporating war funding into the regular defense budget instead of using “emergency supplementals”; eliminating the president’s use of signing statements to alter the substantive meaning of a law passed by Congress; repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act that suspended habeas corpus; and ending the use of wiretapping without a FISA warrant. These are good policies for both Republican and Democratic presidents to abide by.

Without a robust Congressional counterbalance to executive power, we will not be able to stop more Iraqs.  Co-author of the plan Darcy Burner and the dozens of endorsers are not only running to enter Congress but to restore the institution itself.  

This Wednesday I’m helping host a low-dollar fundraising event for Darcy in Los Angeles, where she will be flanked by netroots activists like myself, Dante Atkins (hekebolos), Todd Beeton (MyDD), Digby, John Amato (Crooks and Liars), Arianna Huffington and Rick Jacobs, as well as at least two California candidates who have endorsed the plan, Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Mary Pallant (CA-24).  If you want to reward and recognize true leadership and courage, join me in Los Angeles on Wednesday night.  All the information is at this ActBlue page, and you can donate before the event at the link as well.  I’ll add the text of the invitation below.

*****************************************

Darcy Burner almost beat Dave Reichert to win the Congressional Seat from WA-08 in 2006, and she’s back for a second run! The Republicans are scared-they’ve already send both George AND Laura Bush to raise money for Reichert.

Reichert has the Bushes, but Darcy Burner has us-and she’ll be in Los Angeles on April 9th.

Darcy is a solid progressive candidate: she is not only the co-author of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, but also a leader on other progressive issues like telecom immunity and net neutrality.

And she’s not just a wonderful candidate; she’s a wonderful person too. Please take this opportunity to see Darcy in person:

Date: April 9, 2008

Time: 6:00 to 8:00 pm

Place:

Home of Rick Jacobs and Shaun Kadlec

1556 Courtney Avenue

Los Angeles, California. 90046

Grassroots friend: $25.00

Blograiser: $100.00

Host: $500.00

Sponsor: $1,000

Join our growing list of hosts in supporting and contributing to Darcy Burner:

Dante Atkins (hekebolos), Rick Jacobs and Shaun Kadlec, Digby, Dave Dayen (dday),

Arianna Huffington (huffingtonpost), Ron Shepston, candidate for Congress, CA-42, Todd Beeton (MyDD.com), John Amato (crooksandliars.com), and Sal Rosselli!

To RSVP and make your contribution online, go to the bottom of the page. If you would rather contribute by check or credit card at the door, please RSVP to [email protected], and bring your contribution with you to the event.

Next week, General David Petraeus will travel to Capitol Hill and make his report to Congress on the war in Iraq.  If, as expected, he announces a pause in the withdrawal in troops from Iraq, our Congress must say “no” for the sake of our military and of our servicemembers.

We can not pause the withdrawal of our troops because we are seeing, everyday, the absolute devastation our wars, with frequent, long, often extended deployments, are having on our men and women in uniform.

How can we constantly churn our troops like this? How can we consciously compound the wounds of war? We are sending men and women back for fourth and fifth tours of duty when the Department of Defense, by its own estimation, says that with each additional tour, troops are 60% more likely to develop severe post-combat mental health issues.

Today, here at Veterans for America as part of our Wounded Warrior Outreach Program, we are releasing two very important reports. In fact, we are delivering these reports to every Senator and House Member on Capitol Hill so that they can be better informed when General Petraeus testifies and when they weigh all elements of Iraq policy.

Our first new report – The Consequences of Churning” – takes an in-depth, state-by-state look at the toll multiple deployments are taking on frontline Army units.

These units are going through high-intensity combat, are not getting adequate dwell time between tours, and are also being devastated by the fifteen month tours.

Our second new report — “Weekend Warriors to Frontline Soldiers” — examines the toll of repeated deployments on our National Guard, again breaking it down state-by-state.

Here we see that of the nearly 200,000 National Guard members that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and almost half are returning with post-combat mental problems.

The problems of our troops are real and immediate, and they are getting worse.  The Soldiers who are seeing the most combat are also being sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan the greatest number of times.

As part of our Wounded Warrior Outreach Program, we traveled to Fort Drum in New York State and saw, first-hand, the devastation that is happening right now.  Devastation that gets worse with every tour, every deployment.

We are releasing these reports, and we have a simple message: enough is enough. The greatest threat to our military is the continued deployment of our troops under unfair conditions; it’s as simple as that. As Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, “The well is deep, but it is not infinite…People are tired.”

The withdrawals must continue, our troops must come home, and we must be ready to help them.

We have to continue to assess how much help the 1.6 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan need and what assistance they will need in the future. We know the need will be great; it is our duty to be ready to answer the call of those who answered the call for us.