IAVA makes a point of welcoming any veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, saying “we don’t care about your politics or ideology -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Kossack, Dittohead, or just plain fed up with it all.” Why that approach?

As the leading group for the new generation of vets, it is critical that party affiliation not matter. It didn't matter when we were at war, it shouldn't matter now that we are home fighting for our own. The partisanship is tearing our country apart, and would do the same to the new vets movement. And to be honest with you, most vets seem fed up with the entire poisoned nature of the war dialogue in Washington and nationwide. We understand how huge the challenges are, and that we must work together as vets to meet them.

Why start IAVA?

I was pissed off. And there was a void. When I got home in '04, there were no I/A vets groups. Nobody was representing the perspective and interests of the people on the ground who had served. I wanted to grow a platform that empowered, organized and enabled ordinary troops, and let them represent the truth for themselves. I knew Iraq was going south in a big way, the White House wasn't giving America the real deal, and vets were coming home with huge issues to a country that was not ready for them.

I had a flat website, and lots of vets started contacting me, suggesting we get together and start something. The movement began online, with no money, and was totally grassroots. We got the website up, starting writing and things grew very fast from there. At one point we were almost 50K in debt on our credit cards, but we believed we were building something critical that people would respond to. Thankfully for my credit rating, we were right.

It's expanded quickly, growing in about three years to more than 65,000 members, right? How centralized, top-down an organization is it?

Yes. Very quickly. It's less top-down every day. The tools and resources come and go from both directions though. It is somewhat like the military -- but even more democratic. The discipline, organization skills and selflessness are very much like what I experienced in the Army. And the creativity, ingenuity and passion at the lowest levels is also similar. Fundraising comes from me schmoozing with rich people and going on TV, but it also has come from tens of thousands of ordinary people (many of them vets) who care about our issues and donate what they can. We drew many lessons from the Dean campaign and from the days I worked on tech deals on Wall Street.

I try to keep us all on the same subject (coordinating fires---to use a military term) but the trigger pulling (in this case, blogging, local organizing, speaking events, BBQs, legislative actions) come from our "Online Army" of dedicated people.

Traumatic Brain Injury is a good example, and a big focus for us right now. I was interviewed by Bob Woodruff from ABC -- we are actually doing an email action w/in the next few minutes on this -- and orchestrated legislative work in DC. But we found people all over the US to share their personal stories, contact their senators, write their papers, tell their friends. Our staff is small, young, terribly under-paid, and incredible devoted. And there are always vets popping in. It is like a vets' clubhouse around here. One just now as a matter of fact -- Herold Noel. [Herold's struggle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and homelessness was featured in the documentary "When I Came Home", as was IAVA's assistance to Herold.]

HQ is in NYC. But we just opened a new office in DC last week. BVA [Blind Veterans Association] has become like a big brother org to us, and has generously donated some of their space to us in DC.

You talked about the creativity of veterans and soldiers, and it points to one way this war is different. We've now got milbloggers, soldier/documentarians like the guys who did "The War Tapes". We back here at home get direct access to the fray. For some younger soldiers especially, it must seem natural for them to document and explore their war experiences online.

Tech has totally changed the way we view war. This is the first war of the Internet age. Blogs, vlogs, docs, the new media -- it has totally changed the way America views and understands war. "The War Tapes" brings you about as close as you can get to Iraq without seeing a recruiter. That is why as an organization, we see these "products" as such an important part of what we do. They help us communicate the experience and wake people up in a way that was impossible years ago.

Also, sometimes soldiers write books.

Yep. The quick turnaround on books and docs is also unique to this war. I wrote much of my book while I was there in 03-04. Colby Buzzell did the same thing (My War). We both felt that we needed to connect people with our war and its issues.

You wrote it while in Iraq?

Some of it. Parts come from my letters and patrol journals. The web also lets me try new ways to connect my book with people, like the audio file first chapter i have at www.ChasingGhosts.com. Chuck Palahnuik is one of my favorite authors. I hear him say once that he likes to "write books for people who don't read books". I took the same approach. I wanted to make my book as accessible as possible because the issues are so urgent.

All these platforms are what IAVA is all about, letting us speak for ourselves, so that guys like Rumsfeld and Bush aren't doing it for us.

Let's talk issues. The IAVA approach is simple: to keep American soldiers strong and healthy, send them into war with a clear purpose with the best equipment, treat him or her well after that service is done, and respect his or her a voice in the national discussion of war and the military. What has the response been to that message?

VERY strong. Most people are sick of all the bullshit they hear and see on TV and the radio. They are tired of the talking heads and policy wonks and politicians who are full of judgment and opinion, but seriously lacking in credibility and relevant experience. They want to hear from real people that they can relate to, that sound/look like them and people they know, people who aren't running for office or pushing a party agenda. People are hungry to hear from real vets. I think that is why we have succeeded. We fill a void. And stay true to our values and mission.

I think that is why someone like Paul Hackett did so well. (I saw the piece on MyDD today.) He was a breath of honesty and fresh air. And when it came to Iraq, unlike most of the blowhards in DC, he had actually been there.

I want to ask about John Kerry. You worked with his presidential campaign in 2004 and describe him in Chasing Ghosts as "calculating and coached politician." There does seem to be a disconnect between the young soldier who delivered strikingly brilliant Senate testimony in 1971 and the man who ran for president.

Yep. First, I have to set the record straight, I never worked for Kerry. I did the Democratic Response speech, but that was really it. They used me for what they wanted, but really weren't interested in involving me and other vets beyond that. They made the same mistake the GOP made in some ways. The wanted to use us for photo ops and political props to read the pledge of allegiance. But they didn't want to put us out in front to work through the policy discussion. For them, is seemed that they had calculated that taking on the war and/or Bush was too risky.

I am not even a Democrat. I was just looking for a horse to ride. Instead I got an ass. I learned, I grew and I evolved. And I think other vets (and other Americans) did too. We are all hungry for new options. I think that is why Obama is galvanizing so much energy. And why people are so curious about projects like Unity08. If the Dems want to succeed long term (as an outsider), they need to invest solidly in things like the Truman Project. I want to see both parties get stronger and smarter. That is what is best for America in the long run, I believe.

What's your take on the funding battle currently raging between congressional Democrats and President Bush?

It is kind of sad really. Bush and the Dems battle back and forth and America, our troops and the Iraqis are caught in the middle. Today on MyDD Chris wrote "Ditch 'the politics of unity and purpose' and earnestly take the fight to Republicans." I think that's one way to run a campaign, but it is a terrible way for us to legislate. We need to find ways to work together. It starts with the President, obviously. But how can we tell the Iraqis that they must reconcile, cooperate and get along when our own leader here (who aren't getting blown up every day) can't do the same?

If this really is a time of war -- and I believe it is -- we need to find ways to work together for the common good. Bush has the veto, and the Dems don't have the votes to override it. So here we are. This will continue until the war gets worse, we get closer to '08, and more Republicans defect. Eventually, the Dems will have the votes, but until then, they are over a barrel. I think they are smart to put guys like Joe Sestak and Pat Murphy out in front. Guys like them and Tester should be their future. Not (and I know I will get slammed by your community for this) Ned Lamont.

You know this is going to run on MyDD, right?

Yep. Bring it on. I think your audience is smart. And interested in real, productive dialogue. I hope I can help spark that.

Why shouldn't Lamont be the face of Democrats?

He is a wuss. Face it. He is a very nice man, but he had an image that reflected the strength of jello. He was a one-issue candidate that didnt know the one issue at all. Being against the war is not enough. You need a plan, and an understanding of foreign policy and the military. I respect his courage and intensity, but I have interns that know more about Iraq than he did. Americans like people who are tough and credible. Mind you, I am no fan of Lieberman on Iraq, but I saw Lamont as a weak leader.

When Joe Sestak was on Meet the Press vs. Tom Delay, you saw what could be the future for the Dems. A former Navy Admiral, who commanded a carrier battle group off the coast of Afghanistan, arguing military operations against a lifetime politician who had never heard a shot fired in anger in his life. I know Joe. He is a guy who knows what the hell is talking about regarding Iraq.

Is military experience where it begins and ends?

No. But it really helps. It wasn't enough for Kerry. There are other ways to gain institutional knowledge on war and military issues. Hillary didn't serve, but she has spent a solid amount of time on the Armed Services Committee. She has been working hard in the last few years to understand vets issues. Biden is on the Foreign Relations Committee.

It was a very good move that when Obama was first elected to the Senate he got on the Veterans Affairs Committee. He has been aggressively out in front on vets issues like Walter Reed (with McCaskill), Homelessness and Mental Health (with Snowe). I think if Chuck Hagel gets in things are going to get very interesting. He is a good man that is well respected within the military and veterans communities.

When you were on the Colbert Report, you said that "if we stay it's going to be bad and if we leave it's going to be bad -- it's a false choice" and that solutions "start with having a real assessment of where we are." When you spoke, Rumsfeld was at the helm of the DOD and General Casey was leading the U.S. force in Iraq. Where are we now?

Good question. Iraq has gotten worse. But I think the country has gotten smarter. And with Rumsfeld and Casey out, and Gates and Petreus in, the leadership has improved. (By the country, I meant the U.S. population.) We still have no good options. People don't want to hear it, but I think they are really starting to get it. This is a mistake that is so much bigger than Vietnam. There are so many more variables, interests and moving pieces. I think the Iraq Study Group have us an excellent, comprehensive assessment of where we are now. But the President chose to ignore it. McCaffrey's latest report (pdf) also gives us a good update since the ISG. I also want to add, that our military has gotten weakened significantly since last year too. The overflow potential of Iraq is growing every day.

Expand on "overflow potential" a bit?

Sure. The Turks are now threatening to invade Kurdistan. The Iranians have grown in influence, and are playing more extensively in Iraq. The Israelis got beat up by Hezbollah. The Saudis are nervous. Relations with Chavez have continued to deteriorate, so we are more dependent on mid-East oil than ever. Two million Iraqis have fled the country to surrounding nations like Jordan. Afghanistan has gotten worse (and we should expect a new spring offensive). And by doubling our efforts with the surge, we are putting more eggs in one basket. It is like that board game, Risk. You only have so many pieces, and when you put them all in one area, you know that you compromise your ability to guard another one. I am very concerned that our military is breaking, we have over-committed to Iraq, our strategic reserves are depleted, and our back door is wide open. Sorry I can't be more cheerful.

We're not here for cheerful.

What's your take on Walter Reed?

This is the side of the war that the President failed to plan for that America is just starting to understand. Bush didn't allocate enough body armor, enough troops, enough State Department assets, but he also didn't plan and/or allocate enough resources to meet the needs of 2 million returning OIF/OEF vets. American is not ready for the flood of vets that have and will return home. And Walter Reed revealed that. It was like a Hurricane Katrina-type moment. But it is also just the tip of the iceberg.

Let's talk about Chasing Ghosts. You open with the line “George Bush had better be fucking right,” though it doesn’t take a reader long to figure out that you had serious doubts about the wisdom of this war. You volunteered to go into combat, saying “I was torn in half, wrestling with my hunger for combat and my revulsion for the President.” So you hit the ground in Kuwait, ready to lead men but with two conflicting thoughts in your head.

I knew the war was a terrible idea. I worried it could turn out to be a catastrophic mistake. The worst in our nation's modern history. Unless things turn around in the future, I will be right. I thought we'd be repeating many of the mistakes of Vietnam. Most of all, I knew that the cause was not clear, and the national support was fragile. That is a recipe for failure.

You're pretty aggressively non-partisan. But what would you make of the argument that it's not just President Bush that is to blame, but the whole Republican infrastructure and a Republican Congress that chose not to do any oversight over the war?

I would agree, in part. Most Dems supported the war. The entire system failed to ask the tough questions. They were intimidated by the President, shaken after 9/11, misinformed by the "experts". I am of course talking about the run-up. I still think we are country trying to remold our identity after 9/11. And again after Iraq. Bush has said Iraq is the biggest fight of our generation. He is wrong. Figuring out what to do after Iraq, and how to repair the region and improve America's global standing, will be the fight of our generation. And Bush made the call, he approved the plan, he built to team. He gets the glory if it works out, but he shoulders the blame it it doesn't. To quote Vonnegut (very sad he is gone recently), "so it goes."

Dems are trying now to clean up the mess. We'll all be trying for a generation. Gotta give them credit for getting off to a good start on vets issues though! [Paul sent along this pdf from the House Veterans Affairs Committee on progress made so far.]

I just finished watching “Shut Up and Sing,” a documentary about the response to the comments made by Dixie Chicks’ singer Natalie Maines during a 2003 concert, where she objected to the war and said that the group was embarrassed that President Bush hails from their home state of Texas. I was struck by this idea in the film that the words of a country/pop singer in London were profoundly damaging to troop morale in Iraq. In 2003, you were leading your platoon on combat patrols in the Adamiyah section of central Baghdad. As both a soldier and an artist yourself, what did you make of the Dixie Chicks situation?

I thought it was bullshit. I love the Dixie Chicks. And we listened to their song "Traveling Soldier" all the time while we were there. My girlfriend is a musician and does a ton of political music, so it hits me close to home. People tried to say the same bullshit to her when she did music critical of the war. She does a song called "Blind Trinity" about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Randy Rhodes played Blind Trinity on Air America Radio a few times. It rocks. People attacked her patriotism for it, while she was sending me care packages in Iraq daily!

Political dialogue and free speech are two principles I joined the military to protect. What damages morale is a car bomb, 120 degree heat, the fact that your wife left you, or that you just got extended for another three months in Iraq. Not what some singer says in London. That is another example of Bush and co. using the troops as some kind of political hostage -- "careful what you say! You might hurt the troops."

Most of us have done multiple tours, been shot at, etc. We can handle a healthy debate about the most important issue of our time. I think if the Democrats were smart, they would recruit Natalie Maines to run for office.

Will IAVA make an endorsement in '08?

Nope. We hope that all candidates will be strong on vets issues, and make them a campaign priority. Also, legally, as a 501 C3, we cannot do endorsements.

Is IAVA PAC something else entirely then?

Non-existent. We folded it. It was then resurrected as VoteVets.org, by a different group, totally separate from us. We wish them well, but are separate. We might try to host an event, forum or something though, on vets issues and/or the war. We want to ask them all the tough questions. But I have my personal favorites.

I think I might be able to guess.

You will have to, cause I ain't saying. Colbert and Stewart!

Paul asked me to included a link to his MySpace page, saying it "helps us get those youngsters involved."