IVAW: October is Afghanistan Awareness Month
I really don’t know what their point is, but the IVAW has named October Afghanistan Awareness Month. Their stated goal;
We hope to bury the myth, once-and-for-all, that Afghanistan is “the Good War,” because too many Amercans are still on the fence about it.
Now is the time to sharpen debate and broaden consensus that the U.S. must get out of Afghanistan.
That’s funny because even the Executive Director, Jose Vasquez, has said that he wouldn’t have filed conscientious objector paperwork if only the Army had decided to send him to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I guess he’s had a reawakening since then.
IVAW chapters around the country also will be holding college teach-ins and other educational events to share what they know about the Afghanistan occupation.
“…to share what they know”? Based on things like Matthis Chiroux’s six days inside the wire at Bagram? Actual Afghanistan veterans must be few and far between at this point in their organizational history. “What they know” must be limited to things they’ve read in Facebook. In fact, their knowledge base is so narrow these days, Dahr Jamail, journalist to the fakers, is forced to write books with interviews he obtained five or six years ago and reports it as today’s news.
I’m sure that VFP will be able to find one of their members who served with Rudyard Kipling to round out the analysis, though.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War
The only people who are ever on the fence, on ANY subject, are those who don’t care enough to educate themselves.
Presidents who fight unjust wars do not win peace prizes. Obama won the nobel peace prize, therefore Afghanistan is a just war, QED.
According to AS, anyone with a NDSM is qualified to speak about the war since they are all War Vets.
“anyone with a NDSM is qualified to speak about the war since they are all War Vets.”
…Umm, I watched Desert Storm on Armed Forces TV in Germany whilst guarding Patriot Missiles… And got the gimmie NDSM for my troubles. I don’t qualify to speak for the Desert Storm experience.
BNG, JuniorAG:
Would you deny that there are people who are directly contributing to the success and failure of various missions through their direct efforts to support combat units? And that some of those people providing direct and crucial support are not located physically in Iraq or Afghanistan?
It would be a near-herculean task to look through everyone’s DD214s and determine exactly who provided exactly what kind of support. IVAW supports the larger of the two options and allows all GWOT vets to join. Some of them I think provided crucial services. For example, yes, we do have the Landstuhl medics you seem to hate so much. I don’t think the guys that get medevaced there hate them, though, or would deny that their service was important to the war.
Bull-Fucking-Shit.
1) You look on a DD214.
2) It has an EFCM. (or) It has an IFCM.
3) Dude or Dudette is authorized as a ‘combat’ veteran.
4) Pass out ghey agenda, communist manifesto, and membership forms for IEVAW.
“Would you deny that there are people who are directly contributing to the success and failure of various missions through their direct efforts to support combat units? And that some of those people providing direct and crucial support are not located physically in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
I would not deny that, however I am not ready to then make the LEAP that you made to say,
“Again, as I’ve said before: the war is the time period.”
“It would be a near-herculean task to look through everyone’s DD214s and determine exactly who provided exactly what kind of support.”
Actually it would not and here is why.
There are the 5 pieces of documentation your group allegedly accepts as proof of service. Only 5.
?DD 214
?Military Photo identification
?Unit Move Order indicating service dates and locations
?Medal, award, or certificate of recognition
?Paperwork from Veterans Administration
While IVAW allegedly looks at all of those DD 214 for confirmation of eligiblity, it must be tough to find the line in section 18. Remarks that says, “Imminent Danger Pay Area from to “. Unit Move Order or Medal, award or certificate of recognition (awards like the CFMB, CIB or I dunno, the CAB). Those 3 forms of verification of eligibility would make it real difficult to prove. And look, your group already asks for them.
No matter how you try to spin it, your group (and you I am afraid) are just a bunch of guys/gals sitting in the bleachers commenting negatively on the players actually on the field.
I agree with AS that everyone does their part to support the war even if not in-country. That does not mean that they understand what it is like to actually be there or what the conditions are. By the way AS, you actively protest against the Iraq Campaign, but yet your continued service in the Army supports that Campaign. How do you justify that, especially since I believe you have previously referred to it as an illegal occupation.
Except that to me the purpose of the I(A)VAW was that the members had a unique point of view because they where in country and saw first hand how things where going wrong. Not I supported OIF/OEF form outside the country. Because they are just as separated from what is happing there as the rest of the American public.
AS
It should be simple, can you show a Iraq or a Afghanistan Campaign medal? If not then you where not there or not in country long enough to really have impact as those that did a 12-15 month deployment.
The support for the war is important but that does not mean that you took part in the campaign. That is a big difference. IVAW name is very misleading to say the least. I mean would you consider me a Afghanistan vet even if I never been there?
dutch508 and BNG:
I’m not saying it’s hard to verify campaign medals or boots on the ground of more than 30 days. (less is harder, for obvious reasons, as are classified assignments). I’m saying that it would be hard to prove direct combat support which occurred from outside Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, like I said, the Landstuhl medical staff who treated guys who were medevaced out and saved lives every day. They might not have been deployed, might not have time on the ground, but nobody can say that they didn’t participate in and have a really good view of the costs of war.
BNG: You can try to personally taunt me all you want, that’s fine. I’m not going to talk about what I did because I’m not allowed by the laws of the United States to do so. I know it seems to bother a lot of people that I try to abide by the law, and do the right thing. I have tried to do the right thing in all circumstances, and even tried to do right by you personally the last time we were in direct communication. I’m sorry that you seem to view membership in IVAW as some sort of horrible thing. I’m sorry that you can’t seem to get to a place where it doesn’t matter what the politics of a fellow vet are. People I like and respect tell me you’re a good guy, and I’ll take them at their word, but you’ve definitely got a lot of bitter in you.
YatYas:
I did my job because it saved lives, and none of the orders I was given were illegal. Yes, I believe the war was not carried out in accordance with United Nations protocol and some of our former treaties. I do not believe that fact justifies abandoning your post. I’m sorry if you have different views.
AS:
I did my job because it saved lives, and none of the orders I was given were illegal.
AS, does that mean you no longer do anything on active duty that supports the Iraq Campaign? None of the orders you were given were illegal, so you admit that the Iraq Campaign is legal. If the Iraq Campaign is legal, but should not have been undertaken for whatever reason you believe, why don’t you articulate it that way. That would be something we could reasonably argue over or how either the Iraq or Afghanistan Campaigns have been or are being handled. As long as you belong to the IVAW, it is hard as an old retired Gunny to take you seriously or see you as an effective SNCO.
AS
It is not a case of them not supporting the war effort, but a misrepresentation of claiming that you took part of a campaign the ground. If you want to have the people that where not actively in country to talk about their experiences you need to name and describe these people as such.
Because I think that seeing things first hand will always win over hearing about it. For example, I went to Iraq but I cannot speak about what happened in Mosul because I was never there. So how can you speak with intimate knowledge of a country that you have never been in? If there is a issue in Germany, they would be the people to talk to rather then me because they are stationed there while I have never been.
Long story short it is one thing saying that you helped with the war effort and another to say that you where there at a certain location.
Ok, fine. The same people that say I am a good guy also told me that you were a good person too. I appreciate what you tried to do prior to WSII.
I did not jump all in your wheelhouse until you started in on that “served any where = war vet” horse crap.
Do I have a problem with your group? Guilty as charged. You are a member of a group that (still even after the election) has some questionable people and organizations in key positions. TSO and John were IMO frankly lucky re: WSII and the information your group wanted before they (or I) could attend.
You know, it would have saved your group a lot of headaches if they had looked half as hard at your own MEMBERS as you did at the observers.
Do I think you will one day wake up and realize you have done other vets wrong by supporting that group? Yes, but the damage will be done. You think that now that the group has had an election it is now clean? Hardly.
Am I bitter? Not really, but you win.
Answering offline.
Would be interested in hearing your reply.
Oh, (blank) me….Classified Assignments?
I have NO doubt that tons of IEVAW claim ‘classified’ assignments to prove their ‘3L3T3’ combat experiences…
…I seem to remember a boat ride…into Cambodia…at Christmas time…
[throws the BS flag…again]
sporkmaster: sorry, forgot you had said something too. I don’t think anyone is misrepresenting that they were on the ground or were not on the ground. I definitely agree that people should not misrepresent themselves. I think the problem has always been a definition in terms. What a “veteran” is means different things to different people-it never goes off the simple definition of the word, and that causes conflict.
I agree that people should tell their own stories rather than others, if possible. Speak from their own experience. Some have, and they’ve been really powerful. For example, we have some Guantanamo guards that have never seen duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. They talked about their experiences as Guantanamo guards, and I think it was very intense.
dutch508:
Classified assignments and 31337 combat experiences very rarely go together. I’m sure they do sometimes, but it’s certainly not the norm.
Well as far as how to define a veteran, it depends on the words before and after. Because to me there is a huge difference between a “Veteran” and “Iraq Veteran”. That is why the loose a lot of creditably when they have IVAW on their shirt and not served in Iraq (or Afghanistan). That is why I think a name change would add back creditability, because they are what they say.
If there are cases of misdoings at Guantanamo, they should speak up. But I am not sure how hanging onto coat tails of the “Iraqi Veteran” will help their stories.
As one of the members (now former) of IVAW that spoke out about my time at Guantanamo. I also went to Iraq hint the reason I joined IVAW.
I have been sending money to the “Elephant Sanctuary” in TN as part of my annual CFC contributions. Using the logic AS uses to justify the existence of IVAW, since I like elephants and materially support them, I should be a ring master of a circus. Or maybe since I only send money to feed and care for them, then I go to the zoo and see them, I should be allowed to be a mahout.
Neely, hopefully statements you made about supposed detainee abuse is investigated by the government. Although, it can be a double-edged sword against those not committing the acts but not reporting them to the proper authorities.
The fallen Marine who the AP published photos of his death — well his father is against the McCrystal strategy — he thinks we should be tougher — says we are not there to work with the Afghan Army or liberate the people — we’re there to hunt down the enemy — I agree with him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_us/us_fallen_marine_s_father/print
http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/
This guy at http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/ put TAH to shame. TAH claims Bush sent us all over the globe to “liberate people” .. what a crock … I’m for kicking the asses of the enemy .. not Bush’s bullshit of fake liberation … finally someone gets it … finally the truth … finally someone calls it as it is ………..