Notice To Readers

Many of you are on my email list.  Somehow my addressbook became corrupted and I have lost your addresses.  If you wish to continue on that list, drop me a quick line containing your correct email address.

Semper Fidelis,

Tom Segel

Troops Angered Over Reid "War Is Lost" Statement

Harlingen, Texas, April 26, 2007:  There are some very irate military personnel serving in Iraq.  They are speaking out in larger and larger numbers.  Though their language must be polite, their anger at lack of support from our civilian leadership is quite apparent.

I was sent a copy of a letter sent to Senator Harry Reid by a naval officer now serving in the war zone. The letter was written by Lieutenant Jason Nichols, an officer in the United States Navy, currently serving in Baghdad. You should read his words in their entirety, without any comment inserted by this journalist.

In addressing the senator he says, “When you say we’ve lost in Iraq, I don’t think you understand the effect of your words.  The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government.  They hear what you say, but they don’t understand it.  They don’t know about the political game, they don’t know about a Presidential veto, and they don’t know about party politics.

“But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists.  They decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists.  They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden.  They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood.  Men, who look the same to us, but are obvious to them as a foreign suicide cell.

“To be brief, your words are killing us.  Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we’ll leave them unprotected in the future. They then don’t report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in convoy.  They don’t report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base.  Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect.

“Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing.  We are winning.  I see it every day.  However, we will win with fewer casualties if you help us.  Will you?”

The warrior closes his letter saying...”Respectfully, LT Jason Nichols, USN”.

That letter is an individual plea from one of our troops in combat to an elected government official.  There has also been a petition circulated that is an acceptable format for members of the armed forces on active duty to appeal to leadership.  It is authorized under DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6 as a means by which those on active duty can submit a grievance to Congress.

The wording of that appeal reads:  “As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat.  I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts, which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home.  The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.”

As of last week almost 2,600 American servicemen and women had signed this appeal.  The letter from Lt. Nichols and the Appeal for Redress say far more than any commentary about how our troops view the War in Iraq and their political support in Congress..

A Cure For The Heartache In America?

Harlingen, Texas, April 21, 2007:  As long as I can remember, the uniformed services of the United States have been the glue that holds the country together.  It also has never mattered if a citizen performed military service, as long as he or she championed those who did answer the call-to-arms. 

But, that was in the past.  In those days it mattered not that a person was young or old.  It also mattered not what political ideology the individual voiced.  When it came to advancing the pride, security, dedication to duty, or the inspiration of America...everyone looked to its armed forces.  When it came to leadership, America sought out veterans who had already displayed insight and courage while defending the nation.  These were the people who continued to lead their cities, states and the country.

But, slowly, with the creeping pace of all things rotten...something foul started eating away at our core.  The citizen soldiers, the war veterans, the retired military leaders all started vanishing from the public arena.  We drifted away from having pride in America to a time of pandering to the personal desires of the few.  We entered a time of replacing the heroes of our nation who had so diligently continued to serve in public office, with a huge band of political prostitutes who would sell their very souls for another two or three years of elected power. 

This became the time when Americans forgot that we were “united” as a country.  Personal beliefs, political preferences, red and blue states, racial divides, class hatred, along with rage at anyone with different values became the templates by which we placed individuals in public office.  Exploiting the self-interests of Americans became the model by which the egocentric, greedy, and corupt advanced themselves.

Thus we have the America of today.  The band of brothers has turned itself into general against general, sergeant against sergeant, and veteran against veteran.  Many of us who spent years of our lives in defense of the United States have drifted away from our basic belief in One Nation Under God.

Today, however, I was reminded that all is not lost in America and there is a way to return to past glory.  An email from a friend in Florida pointed the way. 

Colonel Harry G. Riley, USA (Ret) is perhaps best known for his leadership in the creation of the “Gathering of Eagles” rally held in Washington D. C. on March 17, 2007. This combat hero, who holds both the Silver Star and Bronze Star awards for valor and meritorious service, has continued his public leadership long after military retirement.  That was evident when he became the driving force that held the “Eagles” together as thousands upon thousands of Americans marched in one of the finest patriotic and motivating events the country has seen in decades.

Says Harry Riley, “If all veterans, retirees, spouses, widows, and American patriots in general, without regard to political affiliation or agendas could display uncompromising motivation on the principles of unity and safety of America, support for our troops, and honor the commitment to those we send into harms way when they return...not only could we win the war in Iraq and on terror...we could turn the political hacks into has-beens...”

He proposes we expand the “Gathering of Eagles” format to motivate Republicans, Democrats, independents, moms, dads, widows, young and old to lift up our troops, respect the fallen and honor America.  The colonel feels, as do thousands of other veterans that we should no longer stand for “lip service remarks” of supporting our troops.  He sees an urgency to stamp out the surrender mentality of Washington, and foster the belief that America is worth fighting for and our troops are more than worth all of our unfailing support.

Many echo those thoughts.  Now those who have defended this nation need to come together again and send a message to Washington that we have had our fill of treason, traitors and political pandering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may feel as he said this week, “I believe that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything....”

Most of the active duty military, retired community and veterans believe...”We have not yet begun to fight.” Those of us who have moved to the sidelines should rejoin that battle.

Remembering The Forgotten Heroes

Harlingen, Texas, April 18, 2007:  Americans are well aware of the national media’s obsession with car bombs and body count in Iraq.  Few are the days when we don’t hear of the explosions and have new numbers of dead reported.  Then the ink dries on newsprint and the television screen fades to black.  All are forgotten, except in the minds and hearts of family and friends who loved those who were lost or wounded.

This has always been the story of war.  Even in recalling those mammoth battles of bygone years, what happened to so many, only lingers through the efforts of those who are deeply involved in the preservation of those dark, but meaningful times in our history.

Most of those alive today have no memory of what happened on June 6, 1944.  Called “Operation Overlord”, General Dwight D. Eisenhower led more than 156,000 troops in a 50 mile-wide assault on the beaches of Normandy.  Tons upon tons of explosives from aircraft and naval bombardment preceded the attack, which was then launched using 1,213 allied warships and 4,126 amphibious craft.

As the Allied forces battered their way up beaches filled with mines and barriers, all experienced a blood bath of unimaginable proportions.  There is no fixed record of the exact number of men who died during the landings on five beaches.  What is known...by the end of the Normandy campaign nearly 425,000 Allied and German troops had been killed, wounded or were reported missing.

Today, monuments and memorials to the fallen and wounded can be found along the beaches and across the countryside in France.  The military cemeteries of France reveal row after row of white crosses, Stars of David, and other symbols of faith.  Monuments have been erected and dedicated to all who were killed in action from the various units of the United States armed forces who participated in the invasion.  All are represented except one...The United States Navy.  The men of this service also died for their country. 1,068 officers and sailors were killed in action during the invasion.  Another 34 died of wounds in the days following the attack.  Today, 63 years after the battle, more than 60 monuments and tributes to the various armed forces that participated in the Normandy invasion can be found, but there is still none for these 1,102 fallen heroes.

Though the Naval Order of the United States has been trying to raise the $500,000 needed for a monument to honor these forgotten warriors, the four year long campaign seeking support has fallen on deaf years in both Congress and the Bush Administration.  About half the money has been raised from private sources, but even defense contractors, who spend millions to lobby for war related business, have not written a single check.

Today, a few scattered volunteers from The Greatest Generation continue flooding the mail system and heating the Internet with emails, all in an attempt to raise the remaining money needed to construct the Navy D-Day Monument on Utah Beach in France.

Among them is a retired Navy Lieutenant, Ed McMeekin, who claims to be the youngest of these volunteers.  “Most of the vets in NOUS working on this are older than I, and I am staring 77 in the face”, he says.  He feels these fallen naval warriors have been denied the honor and recognition they deserve.  “Most families of these heroes never heard Taps, never listened to a 21 gun salute, and never received at graveside the tri-folded American Flag or the final salute from the senior member of the Navy Color Guard.  Even their boyhood friends, as well of their shipmates are passing away as I write.”

For the past ten years Ed McMeekin has been airing twice-daily commentaries on two non-profit radio stations.  He has written to 140 of the Fortune 500 Corporations having a history of doing defense related business.  Not one of them offered to help with the project, denying the requests for corporate participation.  Even the conservative broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Oliver North failed to respond to pleas for assistance.

The original Plan for the Navy Monument was to dedicate it on D-Day, 2007.  That date has now been moved to D-Day, 2008.  At the same time, McMeekin and the other monument volunteers are calling out to veteran’s organizations, individual veterans and those in active military service to raise the final $250,000 the Naval Order of the United States needs to complete its project.

The monument was designed at no cost to the NOUS by sculptor Stephen Spears of Fair Hope, Indiana.  Three figures 8 feet tall will rest on a concrete pentagonal base four feet high.  The base will be rimmed with a continuous bronze plaque that wraps around the five sides and will list all Navy vessels that participated in the Normandy invasion.  Also being considered are various relief scenes of the naval operation.  The three figures atop the monument will be those of a Navy Captain in a commanding posture, a sailor figure representing the training and execution of duties and the third figure is that of a Navy Combat Demolition Unit member, signifying those who proceeded the invasion clearing mines and other explosive devices.

Those who wish to learn more about the Navy D-Day Monument or contribute to its completion effort are invited to visit the Naval order of the United States website at www.navalorder.org

McMeekin wanted to close with a personal plea to his former shipmates and all who are members of the naval service, “Much maligned France not only donated the site for the Monument, but also has committed to life-time daily care once it is in place.  I am hoping all members of the Sea Services past and present will financially support this project and widely propagate our effort to remember the forgotten heroes of Normandy.”

Shed Tears For All The Fallen

Harlingen, Texas, April 18, 2007:  There were words of healing.  There were words of remembrance.  There was a candlelight vigil. Three days into the massacre, the story still filled every news program to the exclusion of other national and international events.  Everything on the air, online, and in print was heartbreaking.  Most of it was also sensationalized and filled with political undertones.  Leading print publications used the blood bath of innocent lives as a platform to revisit the subject of guns in America.  Thus, by these means we have come to know about the mass murders of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, the wounding of many others and the suicide of their killer.

The nation has witnessed an unfathomable tragedy, yet the Wall Street Journal started its April 17 article, “The massacre at Virginia Tech cranks up the debate over whether U.S. gun ownership laws are too lax.”

The San Francisco Chronicle in its April 18 edition reads, “The Virginia Tech massacre may reignite a national debate over gun control...”

Even overseas, publication such as London’s Guardian Unlimited wrote yesterday, “The Virginia Tech shootings sparked criticism of U.S. gun control laws around the world...”

The same tone and agenda driven comments were heard on the major television and radio news broadcasts.  Instead of addressing the issue of pain and suffering felt by those left behind, media taskmasters again broke out their gun control playbook.

Why can’t those who are charged with reporting significant events in this country and abroad deal with the painful subject of the hour, which is lives of promise, lives of dedication, lives of hope, love and happiness are gone or forever changed because of the acts of a single madman.

As our national media race to rekindle another debate on the issue of gun control, they fail to pause and reflect on what really happened.  People were killed and others were wounded, not because of guns, but because a lone individual suffered from an extreme mental breakdown.  In his state of mind, two handguns were selected to vent his rage on the world.  It could just as easily been a truckload of fertilizer, as was the case in Oklahoma, when an entire government building and dozens upon dozens of its occupants were destroyed.

This is not a time to be talking about laws and guns.  It is a time to shed tears for all the fallen.  Perhaps in the grief of a university, a state, and yes, even a nation, we can find a way to regain a sense of humanity for all.

The Abominable Dr. Chu

Harlingen, Texas, April 14, 2007:  There are some important words that are burned deeply into the minds of everyone who served in the uniform of our country.  It matters not if they are active duty or retired military, or those veterans who answered the call to arms for a few years of their lives, everybody recalls, “In order to make sure morale is high with those who wear the uniform today, we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past.  We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept.” It was the pre-inaugural statement made on January 19, 2001 by President-elect George W. Bush.  Less than six months later he appointed, and the Senate confirmed, David C. H. Chu as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.  He remains in that Department of Defense (DOD) office today.

It is quite significant that those important words of promise by the Commander in Chief be linked to the individual he selected for this specific office.  It is an office of great power in an arena filled with nothing but privileged individuals.  It is also a position from which a designated administration attack-dog operates to the determent of the entire military community.

Though David Chu claims combat veteran status, the reality of his service as an Army officer is limited to two years, divided by a year as an instructor at the United States Army Logistics Management Center in Virginia and a tour of duty in the Vietnam Headquarters of the First Logistical Command, where he worked in the Office of the Controller.  It is obvious that in this limited world of mathematics and number counting, Chu failed to develop any people skills, understanding about keeping promises, or sense of brotherhood with those who served in defense of our country.

Why is this personal observation important?  Specifically because it has been proven by Chu’s words and actions during his years of government service.  Since his appointment to this office, Chu has never even attempted to hold up the banner on behalf of any veteran or military retiree action.  He tried to suspend reenlistment bonuses, argued against all targeted pay increases for NCOs, fought against increases in hazard and danger pay and tried to keep all increases out of Separation Pay.  He was the voice of denial for the administration on almost every issue related to promised medical entitlements, and attempted to have the government continue its more than 100 year practice of denying disabled military retirees their disability compensation along with their retired pay.

When addressing grass roots attitudes about the powerful and privileged elite of Washington, there is nothing that stirs the ire of the military community more than the name David Chu.  Any call for comments from veterans concerning his remarks or actions will generate email comments by the hundreds.  However, most remarks are so vitriolic and intense they are unsuitable to be placed in print.

Charles Northington is a retired United State Public Health Service Captain who seems to feel Chu has a role similar to many a Chief of Staff known to military personnel on active duty.  That Chief of Staff was the voice of bad news or unpopular orders on many military bases.  By taking such actions in his own right, he gave cover to a Commander who did not want to be viewed by his units with disfavor.

Says Northington, “Dr. Chu deserves all the scorn military retirees and dependents heap upon him.  The many ugly and hurtful remarks he has made and the way he has said them in public needs to be erased.”

“Let me make a few comments that may shed some light on why Dr. Chu has been so ugly and nasty toward retirees and dependents”, he says. “Basically it stems from the budgetary process and power of the Office of Management and Budget. (The White House office responsible for the President’s budget) There is not much the other bureaucrats can do to persuade OMB to revise or loosen up their budgetary dictates.  As an example, we all know that recent legislation ‘requires’ that certain funds for retirees be funded from the Treasury.  Regardless of this requirement OMB dictates that the funds continue to be paid out of the DSOD budget...

“So where can DOD go for relief? “ asks Northington.  “ One way is to secretly appeal to Congress.  This sometimes works.  A second way is to threaten certain vocal groups and interests.  This is an old remedy used at all levels of government.  For instance, if I tell my wife that she has to cut back on her household spending, the first things to go are my favorite foods, drinks, activities, etc.  For cities it is the most visible and necessary programs, like fire fighters, police, parks and swimming pools in the summer.

“What I suspect is that top bureaucrats in DOD may be using retirees and dependents as their whipping boy, in an effort to get us to attract the attention of Congress to the shortfalls and what may be given up.”

The case for attracting the attention of Congress is debatable.  The case for arousing anger in the military community is not.  What causes this anger?  According to Colonel Harry Riley, U.S. Army (ret), it is because Mr. Chu, without rational justification, makes broad and sweeping statements identifying military retiree benefits as the enemy of our active force.”

Chu has testified, “Benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives for today’s military.” Other remarks include, “Congress has gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits.” Because of this burden he says “They are starting to crowd out two things:  First, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Second, they are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten, fifteen years from now.”

Another trigger for retiree anger is Chu’s recommendation that Tricare fees be raised from 50% to 270% for those under age 65 and raise pharmacy co-pay by 67% for all beneficiaries.

Retired Air Force Master Sergeant Jim Whittington asks, “Where was Chu 24 years ago when I raised my right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  I ended up serving 20 years in assignments both overseas and stateside.  During that time I moved my family eight times and was separated from them due to deployments for nearly four years.  Now having served my hitch, and seeking the benefits promised and contracted to me, Chu labels me a burden and obstacle to current readiness.”

Whittington’s final thought is, “Dr. Chu said a 19 year-old doesn’t care about retirement; he wants a Pickup Truck! Was there a survey issued by DOD to the troops?...Pickup Truck vs. Retirement? Or is Dr. Chu just taking advantage of troops busy fighting a war and maybe their naiveness of politics at a young age?”

Active duty military personnel are expected to refrain from any remarks that could be construed as political statements.  That doesn’t keep them from being upset by anyone in civilian leadership who attacks those who wear or have worn the uniform.  One such individual is Michael Oshiki, a Lieutenant Colonel and a medical doctor now serving another tour of duty in Iraq. He sees David Chu’s repeated attacks on veterans and retirees as being particularly noxious.  “As a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, I obviously must respect my superiors.  My observations are personal ones as a citizen and taxpayer and do not represent any official position.  I am in Iraq on my fourth combat deployment, and I can safely say from an informed position that there are PLENTY of ways to save money by cutting wasteful spending in this deployed environment, any of which would be infinitely preferable to penalizing those military members that qualify for disability payments and serve though retirement.”

The doctor observes that David Chu seems to have “this apparent lack of awareness regarding the sacrifices service members make and the inequity with regard to civil servants.” He finds it “particularly surprising from an Under Secretary who started his career of service to the nation as an Army officer in Vietnam.  The more general attitude, however, seems to be very much in line with the culture of arrogance displayed by the civilian leadership at DOD toward the uniformed military members that was fostered during Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary.”

Writing to me for an earlier commentary, Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF (ret) also had some serious observations about Dr. Chu’s conduct.  “The point Dr. Chu misses is that honoring the solemn obligations of our nation to veterans makes a direct contribution to national security even if he chooses to ignore the moral strictures that bind us to promises.  Having served more than 36 years on active duty and with six sons who have served or are serving in the armed forces, I can testify that every failure to honor those obligations diminishes the value of a military career to those who are serving and those who might serve in the future.  If through misguided parsimony we are no longer able to attract the right people, we can’t provide for the security of the nation.”

Already thousands from the military community have written to the White House and Congress concerning the refusal of both branches of government to honor promises made to those who served their country in it’s times of need.  These same veterans and retirees have also been unrelenting in their disgust with the Administration’s continued sanctioning of David Chu’s attacks.  Many more are expressing their rage on the Internet and in print.  But, that will be the subject of another article.