“If we are able to help elect veterans, they are more likely to give more consideration to veterans’ issues while serving in office,” James Mowrer, Iowa director and senior adviser to VoteVets.org, told the Iowa Independent during a telephone interview. “They will be in place to support returning veterans and will help put in policies that support military strategies that are more realistic and feasible than the current administration.”

Mowrer serving with the Iowa National Guard's 133rd Infantry Battalion in Iraq in 2007

Before taking over the Iowa helm of VoteVets.org in January, Mowrer served with the Iowa National Guard’s I-133rd Infantry Battalion, which was deployed to Iraq for 22 months, from October 2005 to August 2007. While serving in Iraq, Mowrer gathered, analyzed and synthesized intelligence for the military.

“I believe that the more veterans we elect to office, the less likely our country is to go to war,” Mowrer said. “I think this notion holds true because veterans have experienced war firsthand, and they know what it means to send our troops into harm’s way. They aren’t going to do it unless there is a very good, compelling reason to do so.”

VoteVets.org primarily focuses on federal offices but has recently expanded its efforts to the state level. Such was the case in Iowa in 2006, when Votevets.org endorsed a successful bid by McKinley Bailey, D-Webster City, for the Iowa House. Bailey, an Iraq war veteran, has helped lead the charge for veterans, helping push through a number of bills during his first term, including the recent passage of a bill that would help build the Veterans Trust Fund through the implementation of three new Iowa Lottery games.

“The state level plays a big role on how our veterans our treated, because they can put policies into place that directly affect veterans,” Mowrer said. “In some areas, the state government has more power than the federal, because they can pass and implement legislation faster. They don’t have to wade through all of the bureaucracy at the federal level.”

Mowrer said he would like to see VoteVets.org focus more at the grass-roots level. “A lot of state-elected officials will move on to seek federal office, so it is in our best interest to focus on electing veterans at the grass-roots level as well,” Mowrer said.

From citizen soldier to veterans’ advocate

Mowrer’s experiences in Iraq served as the foundation for his wanting to become more involved with military and veterans’ issues when he returned to Iowa.

“I got involved with politics and VoteVets because I saw a lot of issues not being addressed by the current administration,” Mowrer said. “I also see a number of veterans’ issues that will need to be addressed, that are not currently being addressed by the Veterans Administration, for this new wave of vets returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

One of the biggest issues that Mowrer saw while in Iraq was the lack of leadership and no concrete plan or military strategy for winning the war. “There was no realistic, comprehensive plan to end our involvement — at least in combat operations,” Mowrer said. “In any military operation, there needs to be some sort of desired ends date and this goal needs to be made clear to the troops and the citizens of the country. There was no strategy in place that would allow that to happen. There was no leadership on the ground pointing troops in the direction of what needs to be done.”

No clear plan for the war in Iraq is what inspired Mowrer to sign on with the presidential campaign of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., before ending his tour of duty in Iraq. Drawn to Biden’s plan for Iraq, Mowrer served as the chair for Vets for Biden before Biden dropped out of the race.

Moreover, Mowrer points his finger at the current administration and leadership for damaging the military through its use of extended and multiple deployments. “When you have an all-volunteer force, their service needs to be treated with respect in order to maintain a strong, capable military force,” Mowrer said. “We have had to invest a large amount of money in enlistment and reenlistment bonuses to bring new people into the military and to retain those who have already fulfilled their initial commitment.”

VoteVets.org vow to hold public officials accountable

Another stated primary goal of VoteVets is to “hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century servicemembers; and fully support our men and women in uniform.”

With the presidential general election in full swing, this pledge has come to fruition. “VoteVets is obviously interested in getting involved with the presidential campaign, making sure both candidates are addressing veterans’ issues and putting a feasible strategy for winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into place.” Mowrer said. “We are making sure they are answering the tough questions when it comes to the welfare of our veterans and deployment issues facing those who are currently serving in the military.”

VoteVets recently ran ads holding the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen, John McCain of Arizona, accountable for his record on the 21st Century GI Bill, which was recently passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

“Sen. McCain is a veteran and uses that as part of his resume, which is completely reasonable, but what is shocking is that he neglected his responsibilities to his fellow veterans,” Mowrer said. “Not only did he miss the vote on the bill, but he was on record opposing the current bill as well, citing fiscal concerns. We have a hard time buying this argument when the funding for the new GI bill could be covered with one week’s funding of the war in Iraq.

“What this says to us is that McCain is willing to send people into harm’s way, but is not willing to provide them with the resources they need to be successful when they return home from the war. A recent study shows that for every dollar we invest in veterans’ education, we see a $7 return on this investment.”

Mowrer says VoteVets is also concerned with the candidates’ future plans for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We are a pro-military organization, and we are in favor of a winnable, feasible strategy, but the definitions need to be specifically defined by the candidates,” Mowrer said. “What is our victory? What is the desired ends date and how do we get there?”

VoteVets recently released an ad (see below) pointing out that McCain is opposing a timetable while the Iraq government has asked the United States to implement one. “So we have put a democratically elected government in place in Iraq, and now we are defying the will of the Iraqi people through their government. To me that is a dangerous course of action is contradictory to what our motives should be. There needs to be a political solution in place that allows some political stability that allows our troops to eventually to withdraw. We cannot keep our troops thee for an indefinite period of time.”

Nonpartisanship and the swift-boat factor

Despite recent ads calling McCain’s policies and comments into question, Mowrer insisted that VoteVets is nonpartisan. “We are looking to hold both candidates responsible, so we would run ads critiquing Sen. Obama as well, if he should offer a policy or say something that we feel doesn’t support veterans,” Mowrer said.

Moreover, Mowrer addressed concerns that VoteVets.org may be partisan. “We have endorsed Republicans and Democrats for Congress,” Mowrer said. “We have held politicians and candidates on both sides accountable for what they say and do. When we have been critical of Republican candidates, the Republican Party has attempted to paint us as a Democrat-leaning organization, but they are not going to argue with us when we are critical of Democrats.”

To help appease any fears that VoteVets.org may be another swift-boating group, Mowrer drew distinctions between a PAC and 527 issue groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “Obviously we are against any attack on someone’s honorable military service, so we will be the first organization to come to the defense of any candidate whose record is unjustly attacked,” Mowrer said. “We will not hesitate to defend them, regardless of where they may be on the political spectrum.

“We may not agree with the candidates on the issues, but we might address those in a different context,” Mowrer said. “We have difference with veterans running for office, and we will address these differences in an honest format.”

“With the war in Iraq now in its 6th costly and bloody year, with over a half a trillion dollars spent, over 4,000 U.S. troops lost, and nearly 30,000 others wounded – an enormous human and financial toll has already been paid by the American people and our troops on the ground,” James Mowrer, Iraq war veteran and Iowa director of VoteVets.org, said in a statement. “It makes no sense to continue spending billions of our hard earned dollars each week in Iraq keeping our troops stuck in the crosshairs of a religious, sectarian civil war with no realistic and comprehensive plan to redeploy. But most importantly, we must never forget the sacred obligation that we owe to our veterans.”

The war in Iraq could end up costing $3 trillion when factoring in combat and other long-term related costs, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues in his new book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War” that the Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery.

“A new CBS News-New York Times poll found that 89% Americans believe the war Iraq has contributed to the economic downturn here at home, yet Rep. Latham and presidential candidate Sen. John McCain are still 100% behind same failed Bush policies that led to both the downward economic spiral and the endless, costly War in Iraq,” Don Brown, vice president of South Central Iowa Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, said in a statement.

“Meanwhile, healthcare for our children, veterans, and seniors is being neglected,” Brown said. “For what is spent during one week in Iraq, 800,000 children could get health insurance for an entire year. It’s time to offer our troops and their families the best kind of support: bring them home safe.”

The effort to urge the Iowa congressional delegation to reprioritize tax expenditures was organized by Americans United for Change, which released the following video on the economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Cost of War (produced by Americans United for Change)

Related Commentary: “Lest We Forget

The opening scene of the play begins with a full-page ad printed in the New York Times, which reads in bold letters, “General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?” The ad was paid for by MoveOn, a political action organization that calls Gen. Petraeus’ credibility into question by implying that the messenger has betrayed the American people by misrepresenting the facts. By choosing to use the word, “betray,” in attacking the credibility of the messenger, a respected and decorated general, MoveOn has used a doubled-edged sword to draw first blood.

In doing so, did MoveOn cross the line?

By late May 2007, Congress had yet to successfully legislate any timetables for troop withdrawal, so they shifted their strategy by enacting legislation that mandated Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker deliver a progress report to Congress by Sept. 15 detailing whether or not progress had been made on 18 benchmarks set by Congress.

Ironically, Congress’ first success in imposing a deadline played right into Bush’s hands, providing him with the perfect gambit: Gen. Petraeus. As frustrations about the war in Iraq and the troop surge mounted at home, the death toll for American soldiers spiked in the theater of war in Iraq. Instead of taking responsibility for this, Bush shirked his responsibility for what happens on the ground in Iraq and placed the burden on to Petraeus’ shoulders. Bush’s credibility, having been shot to pieces, was reborn with the anointment of a respected general.Meanwhile, the commander in chief had not only bought some time but had the perfect shield to deflect opposition fired at him from all fronts, including his own party members, who were feeling the escalating heat from their constituents. Moreover, congressional Republicans, including those who stood behind Bush’s policies in Iraq and those who were getting a little antsy, had the Petraeus Shield at their disposal, when they returned home during August recess to face their constituents.

Some people dogged their representatives at public speaking engagements, yet most Americans stood by and waited and waited and waited until September. But for what? Did anyone seriously think that Petraeus was going to present anything but an optimistic report indicating progress in Iraq?

While campaigning for presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Il., in Iowa in July, retired Air Force Gen. Scott Gration was asked what he thought about Petraeus’ new role. “I tell you one thing, I don’t envy General Petraeus at all,” said Gration. “He’s in a lose-lose situation.” Gration was referencing the notion that if Petraeus reports that progress is being made, he’ll be accosted by the growing anti-war sentiment in America, and if he paints a bleak picture, he’ll have to face the fallout from his boss, the commander in chief.

In addition, Petraeus has the added pressure of carrying the responsibility for the safety and welfare of all the troops in Iraq. The troops in Iraq are dependent upon Petraeus’ leadership and guidance, and a less-than-optimistic report would only serve to undermine their morale, which has already been stretched thin because of multiple and extended deployments.

“General Petraeus is in my opinion the best commander that we have had thus far in Iraq,” Iraq War Veteran war veteran James D. Mowrer told the Iowa Independent. Mowrer, who recently returned from Iraq with the Iowa National Guard 133rd Infantry Battalion and now serves as the state coordinator of Iowa Veterans for Joe Biden, had nothing but praise for Petraeus. “He took over a lot of problems that were not of his own making and is carrying out a strategy that he may or may not agree with.”

Enter, stage left: MoveOn, whose frustration with the Petraeus report helped fuel its full-page ad in the New York Times Sept 10. Ironically, MoveOn’s attack strategy backfired as it has gone from taking the offensive to back pedaling into a defensive mode — under the guise the organization has sparked a discussion at the nation level. On its website, MoveOn Executive Director Eli Pariser writes a post, “the thinking behind the ad,” which attempts to rationalize the group’s decisions but invariably falls into defending its decisions.

MoveOn’s attempt to forge a discussion at the national level regarding Petraeus’ findings has been lost as the focus has shifted to the ad itself, driving the wedge between both sides even deeper. Pariser defends MoveOn’s usage of “betray,” in the ad. “As long as General Petraeus is `untouchable,’ the president can continue to hide behind him,” Pariser writes. “That’s why the public needs to know that Petraeus is neither objective nor trustworthy when it comes to assessing progress in Iraq.”

“A debate on our involvement in Iraq should focus on the policy and the commander and chief that sets that policy, not the soldiers that take orders regardless of their personal feelings,” countered Mowrer, who specialized in gathering intelligence while serving in Iraq.

Of course, Petraeus is not objective, namely because he’s not a civilian, and he works directly under Bush’s command. In the military, soldiers are trained to abide by the chain of command and not to overstep it. By presenting a report contradictory to the next link up in his chain of command and overstepping his commander in chief, Petraeus would have to betray the sacred oath he took upon swearing in to the military, meaning he would have to betray not only his country but himself.

Besides, Americans love their generals. There’s nothing to gain by attacking an active-duty general, let alone a retired general. When Gen. Colin Powell served as secretary of state under Bush and was assigned the task of selling the idea of invading Iraq to the international community, Powell ended up parlaying misinformation. But because of Powell’s distinguished military career, nobody dared to challenge Powell’s credibility by attacking his character.

Not only has MoveOn hunkered down into defensive mode, but the Democrats have been put into a defensive mode as the Republican attack machine revs up. Republicans have called upon Democrats, especially presidential candidates, to denounce the ad. The Senate approved a resolution Thursday denouncing the ad by a vote of 72-25. Given the fact that Democrats represent the Senate majority, it’s surprising this resolution was even considered for debate, thus illustrating that the Democrats stick to what they’re used to playing: defense.

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Joe Biden of Delaware gave the resolution the attention it deserved by skipping the vote. Both senators canceled campaign events to return to D.C. to vote on significant measures regarding Iraq War policy but chose to skip the MoveOn ad vote and return to the campaign trail. Obama called the resolution a “stunt” and said, “By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against these empty politics.”

The day after the resolution passed, MoveOn boasted in an e-mail that “over 12,000 people had donated $500,000 – more than they’ve raised any day this year – for a new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.” Again, there new ad is reactionary, the latter addressing the Webb/Hagel amendment that failed to pass in the Senate last week. Attacking Republicans after the fact is not going to change last week’s vote, much like the “Betray-Us” ad is not going to change what Petraeus reported.

Another possible consequence of the MoveOn ad, other than giving all of the Republican presidential candidates fodder to fire up the party’s base, is that it risks alienating the military and veterans’ bloc of voters, who are considering voting for a Democratic candidate in next year’s election. “This incident has damaged the Democratic party’s 50-state strategy and has hurt our credibility with veterans and service members,” said Mowrer. “We can and will recover in time.”

Until then we’ll have to wait and wait until the fifth act plays out next November and  the political dust settles. Only then we will know whether or we witnessed a Shakespearean comedy or tragedy. If the latter should prevail, the one certainty in a Shakespearean tragedy
is that the messenger, which in this play is Gen. Petraeus, always survives — unscathed.

And this was just the beginning for Biden’s insurgent campaign. The campaign aired a new television ad, “Cathedral,” across Iowa the same day of the debate, and released “Security” a few days later. Both ads focus on national security and Biden’s plan for Iraq. Whether or not this strategy will gain traction with Iowa voters has yet to be seen. Biden’s campaign has been consistently registering anywhere from 2 percent to 5 percent in the Iowa polls.

During a telephone interview with the Iowa Independent, Biden’s campaign dismissed those numbers, contending his campaign is just getting started in Iowa. “Our feet are just beginning to hit the ground in Iowa,” said Iowa Coordinator of Veterans for Biden James D. Mowrer, a Boone native who recently returned from a 16-month mission in Iraq with Iowa National Guard’s 133rd Infantry Battalion. “Not only are these our first campaign television ads, but we just officially launched our organizational efforts in Iowa.”

James Mowrer (right) poses with Jill Biden (middle) and Rep. Donavan Olson, D-Boone (left)

Regardless of his place in the polls, Biden’s campaign has been gaining traction in Iowa among Iraq War veterans, a bloc of voters that Biden’s campaign has been aggressively targeting. “Many Iraq veterans in Iowa are jumping on board with Senator Biden, mainly because of his strategy for Iraq,” said Mowrer. “I’m not 100 percent certain, but I think Biden has the most endorsements from Iraq veterans, and since the war in Iraq is the biggest issue in the campaign, these endorsements will be seen by caucus goers as an endorsement of Biden’s plan for Iraq.”

Although Iraq veterans and their families make up only a small percentage of the voter base in Iowa, Mowrer is confident the “Veterans for Biden” effort will have a big impact on the Iowa Caucuses. “It means a lot for caucus goers to really see which candidates are enlisting people in their campaign, who are most informed about the Iraq War,” said Mowrer. “I was an intelligence analyst in the Iraq War. Consequently, I had access to daily classified reports and assessments of what was going on in Iraq, and using that information, I decided that Sen. Biden is the best candidate to be the next commander in chief in 2009.” In addition to “Veterans for Biden,” the Biden campaign has extended itself to the “Military Families for Biden” as well.

In the “Security” ad, Biden lays out the case for why his leadership qualities and life experiences prepare him to be commander in chief and president of the United States. The current campaign is scheduled to run through Labor Day weekend at a cost of approximately $250,000.

‘Security’

Biden, along with son Beau, who is Delaware’s attorney general and a captain in the Delaware National Guard, have teamed up in Iowa and have been laying the groundwork for these ads. Not only have they been touting Biden’s 34 years of experience in the Senate and insights accumulated while serving on the Foreign Affairs committee, the Biden tandem has pleaded the case to Iowans that there is no margin for error for the next commander in chief.

“We cannot rely on choosing a president, who we think can formulate the best foreign policy team. We’ve already seen the dangers of doing this,” Beau Biden told a group of veterans gathered at the Iowa Democratic Party Veterans’ Caucus Presidential Extravaganza in Des Moines earlier this month. “I want somebody sitting in the situation room, who the minute they’re sworn in doesn’t have to rely on the judgment of advisers. I want the smartest guy in the room to be the president.”

Using the previous two presidential elections as a precedent, Beau Biden went on to explain why the Democrats came up on the short end both times. “Al Gore and John Kerry lost their presidential bids, because they failed the national security test. It is a sin that a decorated Vietnam veteran failed the national security test,” Beau Biden said, referring to Kerry. “And what’s the first thing they used against Kerry? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I ask you to imagine, what they’ll do to the candidates who voted “no” on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill vote a few months ago.”

That bill would appropriate $120 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $94.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure included a Biden amendment allocating $1.5 billion for Mine Resistant Armored Protected vehicles (MRAPs). Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., all presidential candidates, voted against the funding bill. Biden took a lot of heat from anti-war advocates, but because of his MRAP amendment, he stood behind his decision. “I will not cut funding for the troops that denies them the equipment they need to be safe,” Biden said on the Senate floor. “I don’t care what the politics are of that decision.”