Andrew entered the military as a married man of 19 because it was the one way he could get health care without worrying about pre-existing conditions. He started as a private, served, left, came back in, and retired as an officer. He was trained in intelligence, including Korean (to listen to the communications of the North Koreans). At the time of 9-11 he was working with a company that had Arab linguists. They immediately sat down to figure out what they might have to do to be effective against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: there were issues of concentrating on specific dialects, there were logistical issues - that should give a sense.

Within a couple of weeks he had put together a plan and began passing it up the chain of command. And what came back? Forget about it, guys, you are not going to Afghanistan, you are going to Iraq.

This rejection was, as Andrew notes, 3 weeks after 9-11. An intelligence asset that would have been useful against the "Arabs" in Afghanistan was not devoted to that theater, but instead was already been targeted for the Invasion of Iraq.

Of course this should be no surprise. We know from Paul O'Neill that the first meeting of the National Security Council in early 2001 was discussing how they (the Bush administration) would move against Iraq.

But that was not the only thing to upset Andrew. He went to Iraq, where among other things he liaised with the Marines. One of the things that clearly made sense to keep order was to keep the bulk of the Iraqi Army intact and plans were put together for that, and approved several levels up the line, but Paul Bremer, who had no particular military expertise, made the unilateral decision to dismiss the entire Iraqi Army. We know the consequences of that decision.

Being a good soldier, officers on the ground were involved in planning the training of replacement battalions. The task of training foreign military has traditionally been one of the roles of various special forces within the US Military. But when they started to present ideas about how to build up a replacement army, the response was most interesting - they were told that the contracts had not yet been let! In other words, having dismissed an operable army which was already somewhat trained, the American overseers in Iraq were more concerned with letting a contract to a private for profit entity rather than using the US military to do a traditional role it had done in the past.

Andrew shared another story. The Marines with whom he was working were based around Najaf, an incredibly holy city to Shi'a Islam. For some resing the official who had been put in charge was a Sunni. Various Shi'a leaders approached the American military to say that they really didn't want to have to kill the guy but it was unacceptable to have him imposed upon them. After some negotiation an agreement was reached to have an election in a few weeks time, to allow for things to get organized. But when it became clear that the person who would be elected was not someone the Coalition Provisional Authority could control, the election was ordered canceled. Not exactly what one might call helping build a democracy, right?

I thought what Andrew shared with about 75 high school students is worth sharing with a broader audience. I might note that Andrew was quite impressive in his time. He took questions for well over an hour after his 20+ minute opening presentation, was forthright and in command of his facts. He has a much better idea of how to run this time, and it may just be for an open seat - there are rumors that Bartlett will not run, and that he is holding off saying that to try to freeze the race for his son. Andrew Duck might be worth your support, and this is race upon which it is worth keeping an eye.

Not all of candidates need to have served in Iraq, or even in the military. But having candidates who did serve, who can speak first hand of the mismanagement of the war, of the negative impact our presence has on Iraq and Iraqis, of the damage it is doing to so many Americans who serve there, can give a powerful voice, That voice is magnified so long as Iraq remains in any way an issue. And as Americans increasingly come to realize that they were lied into this war, a voice such as that of Andrew Duck, who experienced that directly, could have quite an impact, even ina fairly conservative CD.

Only three weeks after 9-11, and linguistic and intelligence resources that could have been useful in Afghanistan were already targeted for Iraq.

It seems to me this could be evidence in a impeachment trial, because the administration repeatedly lied about the basis for going into Iraq to the American people and to the Congress when it sought authority for invasion. It also could be powerful evidence in a war crimes trial, because this helps demonstrate yet again that this was a war of choice, a war of deliberate aggression, entered into on false pretenses.

Three weeks after 9-11. It makes me want to throw up, thinking of the destruction, the death, the bankruptcy we may have forced upon future generations.

If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy.

Peace.