A senior American military adviser in Baghdad, whose memo arguing that the U.S. should leave Iraq is currently the top story on the New York Times website, is also the author of an unhinged online screed against health-care reform.
The health-care post, by Colonel Timothy Reese, sketches far-fetched scenarios about forced abortions and accuses President Obama of being "deceitful" in telling Americans they can keep their doctor under his plan. Its harsh tone raises questions about an active duty officer inserting himself into the political arena. And it suggests that that his widely-publicized military advice -- which was posted on the same blog as the health-care post -- should perhaps be treated more skeptically than is currently being done.
The military memo being trumpeted by the Times, was written by Reese in early July and sent to a limited audience of commanders. It identifies problems with Iraqi forces, but nonetheless argues that they're strong enough to maintain basic stability, and that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past 2010 will fuel growing resentment among Iraqis. It's time "for the U.S. to declare victory and go home," it argues.
The Times notes that Reese posted an earlier version of his memo -- since removed but preserved here -- on a blog called "The Enchanter's Corner," under the byline Tim the Enchanter. The blog is affiliated with the right-wing Townhall site, though the Times leaves that out. A bio describes Tim the Enchanter as "a member of the US Army on active duty for almost 30 years ... currently serving in Iraq as an advisor to the Iraq security forces" and someone who is "passionate about political issues."
A reader tip pointed TPMmuckraker to the health-care post, which was posted on The Enchanter's Corner the very same day, July 20, as the military memo. (It's since been removed as well, but you can see it here.) It appeared under the same byline of Tim the Enchanter, making clear that the two posts are by the same author.
Entitled "The Camel's Nose of Health Care," Reese's post takes an alarmist, paranoid, view of the president's plan to reform health care, and rehashes many of the most far-fetched, misinformed, and flatly false fears about reform that currently circulate on right-wing blogs and email lists.
Reese warns that "the inexorable logic of government health care costs will drive big brother to intrude ever more deeply into your life in the vain hope of making it work by making you work to change your life." He adds: "[M]any in government will seize this as the opportunity to shape your lives in their image of the new dependent class."
Later, he warns that health-care reform will bring on rationing so extreme that a future couple will be forced by the government to abort a damaged foetus:
More Orwellian will be this, "Mr. and Mrs. Jones, while we appreciate your desire to give birth to your fetus, but its deformity / disease / syndrome exceeds allowable limits over its expected lifespan."
Reese also invokes future "restrictions on your lifestyle," again imagining a conversation between a government bureaucrat and a patient:
Mr. Smith, I see you have failed to lose the 25 lbs we have been talking about during your last three required checkups. I'm afraid we are going to raise your premiums 25% until you lose the weight. Or you could join the walking club at the government health club next door; as long as you walk every day with them we'll keep your cost share as it is now. But smoking is right out - give it up in 30 days or be denied care.
And Reese suggests that the government will use food vouchers to force people to eat healthier foods, thereby reducing medical costs:
Mrs. Brown, here is your new food voucher for the month. It has been encoded to allow the purchase of balanced combination of food items specially tailored to maintain a healthy, "low health care cost you," based on your medical history and condition. It can be used at any government approved grocery or supermarket, just buy the correct number of each type of item as shown on the attached printout. If you try to purchase an item that doesn't have the ObamaCare stamp on the label, the cashier will simply remove it from your basket.
You can read the whole thing here.
Of course, Reese's views on health care don't necessarily reflect on his credentials as a military strategist. Having been on active duty for almost 30 years, it would hardly be surprising if he were better informed about our mission in Iraq than about health care.
But if nothing else, it's worth knowing a bit more about him, and about his approach to thinking about important issues of the day.


714Day
July 30, 2009 1:18 PM
To say the least, the publication of Colonel Reese's position on troop withdrawal from Iraq must be viewed in a different light with the revelation of his perspective on health care reform. The guy clearly thinks like a reactionary...at best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NewsNag
July 30, 2009 7:51 PM in reply to 714Day
not necessarily just a reactionary, but perhaps a Cheney-loyal operative planted to spread military advice and thinking that would likely later result in an embarassment for the Obama administration.
right-wing operatives burrowed into the military is almost a redundancy, but it actually seems likely Reese's advice would lead to a tripwire event designed to delegitimate Obama as commander-in-chief in the public's eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drwu
July 30, 2009 1:35 PM
We say we're leaving Iraq but we still have 300,000 plus troops,contractors there. The Brits said over a 50 year occupation that they were leaving--many times they said this. In this way we're like the Brits--We both came for the oil--they left when their empire finally imploded--but we soldier on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Napoleon
July 30, 2009 1:39 PM
So let me see if I have this right. Someone who has voluntarily accepted government health care for 30 years is complaining of what will happen if others get government health care (but not about his own health care0, all while he continues to accept government health care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AbqMike
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM in reply to Napoleon
Right on, Napoleon ... see my own comment, below.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chabuka
July 30, 2009 2:32 PM
To bad President Obama doesn't have the stones that President Truman did..he fired MacArthur
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 30, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Chabuka
Firing the top general of a theatre, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, is not the same thing as firing a serving line officer. That's done through the chain of command and pursuant to the UCMJA, specifically Article 88.
No political prodding will be necessary. Most serving officers, particularly West Pointers, have subordination to civilian authority drilled into them so thouroughly, that many of them are deeply inhibited about critizing the current president even after they retire. More pratically, they consider stuff like this as prejudicial to discipline. If enlisted men see a colonel critizing the CIC, how long is it before they decide they can criticize the orders of their immediate superiors? And, from there, it's a short hop to insubordination or even mutiny.
Most of the time, stuff like this is dealt with through administrative action. Several officers were disciplined during the Clinton Administration. That usually means a blot on a service record that prevents promotion and, therefore, subjects the officer to mandatory retirement. If this guy's a lt. colonel with 30 years, he's on his way out regardless. If he's a bird colonel, he just blew any chance he ever had of getting a star and he'll be out soon. The question is whether he loses rank or years of service for purposes of calculating his pension before he goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shannom
July 30, 2009 2:49 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
July 30, 2009 2:58 PM
I find it entirely plausible that a senior military advisor in Baghdad would be well informed about strategic troop movements, and woefully misinformed about health-care reform. In other words, I'm not sure that being wrong about one necessarily makes him any more or less likely to be wrong about the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amk
July 31, 2009 9:56 PM in reply to superking
The issue is not about his knowledge, it's about his intent (for pulling out from Iraq while simultaneously spewing right wing talking points on health care) especailly, given his wingnut beliefs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
candideyam
July 30, 2009 3:15 PM
Tim the Enchanter farts this in our general direction:
WIC, anybody? That's exactly what this very successful, Nixon-era program does - it pays for healthy foods from an approved list. How draconian to allow the government to do something it has been doing for 37 years! Beware!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 30, 2009 5:16 PM
I guess the real question is whether or not being a wingnut clouds his professional viewpoint on the military questions. I have no idea one way or the other if this might or might not be the case. I did read the memo on Iraq withdrawal and it seemed to be perfectly reasonable, measured and realistic in terms of why we ought to get out and get out as soon as we can. Sometimes you can be a wingnut on political questions that have nothing to do with your expertise and still remain lucid and credible in your profession. I'm sure we're gonna find out soon what the reality is. This will be an interesting little vignette to watch as it unfolds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
July 30, 2009 6:13 PM
My first thought was how did this cretin ever get to be an officer? But remembering back to when I was I was an officer on active duty, I recall too many officers that were as bad as he!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Noam Sane
July 30, 2009 7:19 PM
The health care comments are regurgitated Rush/Hannity crap, typical stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AbqMike
July 30, 2009 7:36 PM
It is, alas, not surprising that a higher-level career military officer would have ultra-conservative views. What is ironic about Col. Reese's views and rationales --- and I doubt he appreciates the irony --- is that he is a member of a group (i.e., the military) that has free, GOVERNMENT run health care; which imposes innumerable "restrictions" on its members "lifestyles;" and which intrudes mightily in its members' private lives (e.g., "don't ask don't tell").
Moreover, it is not that members of the military don't deserve these perks, or that extensive controls on their "lifestyles" are not necessary. It's that such coverage and controls are VASTLY more extensive than anything that even Col. Reese predicts for a reformed health care "system," and members of the military and veterans do not appear the worse for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kibitzer 2006
July 30, 2009 9:25 PM
On the bright side, even the wingnuts are starting to realize that staying in Iraq is not a Good Thing(TM) :).
--Kibitzer
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 31, 2009 1:48 AM
None of these people seem to understand that we live in a *democracy*, where if the government does things that people don't like--such as forcing us (as opposed to urging us) to eat better--the elected officials who set up such totalitarian laws would quickly lose their jobs.
The idea being pushed by some loonies that health reform will mean euthanizing the elderly is expecially ludicrous. The elderly make up one of the most potent electoral demographics, their votes coveted by both parties. This is why Social Security and Medicare are such safe programs--no one dares mess with them. I would like these crazies to list which elected officials they believe will vote for a euthanasia program. Sheesh. It's so stupid I can't believe we're even talking about it.
Perhaps they believe that the military would support a fascist coup by Obama. I wonder it this colonel believes that the Army would be party to a "liberal putsch"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxanne
July 31, 2009 10:58 AM
Can you say Dishonorable Discharge? Look, he's entitled to his opinion as a civilian but, right now you work for the man you call deceitful. This shows at the very least, a lack of judgement on his part. Perhaps he needs some sort of mental health test. As he trashed healthcare for the rest of us, he's covered under a PUBLIC PLAN! This is proof that the military continues to lower it's standards when it comes to who can and who shouldn't serve. While we're kicking gays out of the military, many of whom speak the very languages that we need, we're allowing some of these old timers who's attitudes are over the line and whose country bumpkin way of speaking does not lend itself to clear english let alone a foreign language. It's time to put this saltine out to pasture!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
August 1, 2009 2:26 PM
Hmmm, I'm happy for someone to push us to get out of Iraq. Does that make me a wingnut?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OldenGoldenDecoy
August 3, 2009 4:55 AM
Uhhhh . . .
It's quite telling what level of acumen he has if it took this ground-pounder 30 years to get to the level of Colonel.
Now ... here is an article from 2001. I do not know if it's the same Timothy Reese or not, but it would be quite interesting to find out.
Maybe if Zachary Roth were to go delve a little deeper into the background of this fella with this knowledge it could bring a little more to the surface about Reese's reasons and wherefores of his writings.
~OGD~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?