Last week I began working for the Obama campaign as its national veterans director. Although I have been open on this blog about my support for Obama, my new job requires me to recuse myself from blogging for the duration of the campaign.

Intel Dump will continue to reside here at washingtonpost.com, with one or more guest-bloggers filling my shoes for the next four months. More details to come soon.

Politico has a great profile of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) today that covers everything from her marriage to Navy officer and astronaut Mark Kelly to the last time she changed a tire in Arizona. I've met Rep. Giffords on a couple of occasions, including a military readiness roundtable in her district last year -- her office asked me to talk on the state of America's ground forces. She's one of the sharpest members in Congress, by far. But what impressed me was the depth of her respect and compassion for America's servicemembers, and her currency on defense issues.

And now, after reading the Politico article, I understand part of the reason: Giffords is the only military spouse in Congress. There are military parents in Congress, and there are many staffers who are part of military families. This is important. Part of this is gender-driven, of course: most military spouses are women, because most military personnel are men, and women are underrepresented in Congress. And there are fewer veterans in Congress today, too, for a variety of demographic reasons.

The result is a diminished human connection between Congress and the military, yet another sign of the civil-military divide.

In testimony before Congress yesterday, Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik became the latest general to stake his reputation and integrity on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces. He expressed an optimistic view that the Iraqis would be ready to lead the fight for Iraq in as little as 12 to 18 months. From today's Post:

Spencer Ackerman's got an interesting piece in the Washington Independent about several leading female counterinsurgency theorists and practitioners. I know most of the women in the piece and think quite highly of them. Spencer's right that we'll likely see a number of them take top positions in the next Pentagon, at the State Department or on the next NSC staff -- regardless of who's elected in November.

Spencer speculates about why women have done so well in the counterinsurgency community and correctly notes that they're competing for prominence in a male-dominated field, where it matters to many that you've served as a combat infantryman or have participated in special operations. Although many combat roles in the military have opened to women, most infantry and special operations jobs remain closed. And thus there are few opportunities for women to prove themselves on the frontlines, at least in the manner the defense establishment is used to.

Times, though, are a changin'. A new generation of female military personnel is growing up, serving in combat with distinction -- as diplomats, helicopter pilots, civil affairs officers, engineers, logisticians, military police, and in many other roles. More than 100,000 women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan as military, civilian or contractor personnel.

Although the article subtly argues that some of the theorist-practitioners it profiles will rise to cabinet rank as secretary of state or defense, I'm not so sure. More likely, it's the new generation of women with Iraq and Afghanistan combat experience who will eventually leave the service, develop civilian bona fides, run for office and then go on to take positions of leadership such as secretary of defense.

More broadly, I think this will be the trend for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Although a few did step off the battlefield to run for elected office right away, most did not. I think most will come home, leave the service, attend college or grad school, and then spend 10-20 years working and living as civilians before they run for office in any large numbers (or win in any large numbers).

This month's Military Review -- the in-house journal for the Army's leadership and staff college at Fort Leavenworth -- contains a bunch of great stuff.

One of the best articles comes from Andrew Birtle, a senior military historian who has authored two of the better books on the subject of counterinsurgency. In his article, titled "Persuasion and Coercion in Counterinsurgency Warfare," Birtle examines the role that force plays in "winning hearts and minds," and comes to some interesting and important conclusions about the need to balance hard and soft power during these endeavors.

Photo: Warren Zinn

Combat sears the mind and body in ways we can only begin to understand. Everyone comes home from war changed. Tragically, many troops have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from chronic combat stress, and many have gone on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder.

Army Spec. Joe Dwyer was one of those soldiers. He went to war as a combat medic with the 3rd Infantry Division, serving with 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, during its headlong rush to Baghdad in 2003. Immortalized by a Military Times photograph depicting him carrying a young Iraqi child, he went on to see a great deal of suffering on all sides during his tour, and he brought many ghosts home with him.

Dwyer tried mightily to beat these demons, but eventually succumbed to the struggle. On June 28, he died from the effects of various chemicals he ingested to kill himself. His wife, from whom he'd been estranged for a year, said it best: "He was a very good and caring person. He was just never the same when he came back, because of all the things he saw. He tried to seek treatment, but it didn't work."

Yesterday's Post featured a really interesting story about how many detainees captured abroad in the war on terrorism have a forensic trail that leads to criminal activity inside the United States.

Marie Colvin reported in the Times of London this weekend about the intense fighting in Mosul between an amalgam of U.S. and Iraqi forces and al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia fighters. The assault appears to be unfolding similarly to other initiatives: cordon of the city, followed by the establishment of movement control measures like checkpoints, followed by raids on insurgent strongholds and targeted individuals.

Colvin reported the tactics are working and that the U.S.-Iraqi coalition has scored a number of important successes in the past 10 days, such as the killing of an Al Qaeda leader who called himself the "Emir of Mosul." Momentum appears to be on the U.S. side. But Mosul is a large city, and it will be difficult to clear it entirely -- and to follow this initiative with successful efforts in the political, economic and reconstruction areas. As one of Iraq's three largest cities, Mosul's fate matters a great deal. Keep your eye on it.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, is no shrinking violet. Like his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he has worked hard over the past several months to demonstrate that he takes an independent, fact-based approach to the problems of the day, whether the issue is Iraq force levels or dissent within the force.

Yesterday, Mullen continued that tradition with comments at a Pentagon press conference spelling out the tradeoffs between keeping troops in Iraq and deploying them to Afghanistan. Here's what he had to say:

Columnist Christopher Hitchens decided to try out for a Darwin Award (or whatever the equivalent honor is when you survive an incredibly dumb act) by recruiting a team of special operations troops to waterboard him. He then wrote an article about what it felt like for Vanity Fair.

Hitch's verdict? "If waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

Honestly, I thought we learned in grade school to be a little smarter than this -- that it wasn't necessary to stick a metal fork in the electrical socket to know there was electricity there. Unfortunately, for some people personal experience trumps all other forms of learning, and they must learn at the school of hard knocks. Or, in this case, the school of hard torture.

What next? Will we wake up to read this headline in Vanity Fair?

Hitchens Loses Legs to Munition in Southern Iraq
Author was trying to understand arguments against cluster-bomb treaty

Kids, don't try this at home. And if you're looking for serious discourse on this issue, I recommend you read Mark Danner, Scott Horton, Jane Mayer, or Malcolm Nance (who Hitchens quotes in his article). These are people with the common sense to know better.