Veterans for Common Sense

August 22, 2008 – The U.S. health care system remains in a state of crisis. Despite incremental efforts at reform, the number of uninsured continues to grow, the cost of care continues to rise, and the safety and quality of care are questioned. The discussions, debates, proposed resolutions, and positions has been overwhelming, but very little emphasis has been placed on the 1.8 million military veterans in the U.S. who neither have health insurance nor receive ongoing care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

Two months shy of the elections, debate on the campaign trail has heated up  over health care.  Presidential candidates; Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain  continue to tout  their position on health reform, few proposals have articulated a comprehensive solution for the health care system as it affects veterans. The United States spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care and we have some of the best medical researchers and most advanced technology in the world, but we have 47 million people without health insurance, and this is having a devastating effect on veterans and their families.

A study by Harvard Medical School and testimony given before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs by Dr. Stephanie J. Woolhandler, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Co-Founder, Physicians for a National Health Program documented the plight suffered by veterans and their families because of the health insurance crisis.

Of the 47 million people without health insurance, one out of every eight, or 12.2 percent, is a veteran or member of a veteran household. Specifically, the study said 1.8 million veterans and 3.8 million household members are uninsured.

In January 2008 the United States Department of Veteran Affairs extended its benefits to combat veterans. But of the 64.3{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of uninsured veterans who were employed and the nearly nine out of ten (86.4{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}) that had worked within the past year did not have health coverage. Most uninsured veterans, like other uninsured Americans were in working families and many earned too little to afford health insurance, and too much to qualify for free care under Medicaid or VA means testing. One out of every four of the homeless in America is a veteran.

Going without health insurance is a huge risk for veterans, who often suffer from both physical and psychological conditions related to their time in the armed services. With a high percentage of minorities serving in the military, it also adds to the health problems in minority communities, where a disproportionate number of residents are already without access to quality health-care services.

Our health care system is a complexity, but I am hopeful in the foreseeable future our nation’s leaders will deliver a comprehensive solution to accessible, affordable, and high-quality health care for everyone including our veterans.

August 22, 2008 – In the middle of the Vietnam War, aides to President Lyndon Johnson spoke of seeing “the light at the end of the tunnel” — that is, until the Tet offensive early in 1968 showed the light to be that of an onrushing train. Are we finally seeing light at the end of the Iraq tunnel? It’s messy, it’s not what we were promised, and it’s not over yet… but the basic outlines of the conflict’s conclusion are emerging.

The Iraq war seems to be ending in what the Bush Administration will argue is victory. Granted, it’s not the kind of fledging democracy that will spread like wildfire to neighboring nations in the Middle East. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s recent move against elements of the Sunni Awakening Councils, which have been instrumental in helping American forces secure order, could reignite violence. But it is amazing how much things have changed.

Casualties among both Iraqis and Americans are way down (the 13 Americans killed in July was the lowest monthly toll since the war began, 18 have died so far this month). The Iraq economy, fueled by oil production, is on the upswing. The Iraqi army is growing in size and skill. And, in perhaps the biggest surprise of all, Washington has acceded to Baghdad’s wish and tentatively agreed to pull all of its combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said this week that al-Qaeda is “in disarray” in northern Iraq and largely out of Baghdad. “There is a sense of normalcy that’s returning to Iraq,” he told Pentagon reporters. Austin spoke of a recent visit to a major outdoor market in Mosul that was “overflowing” with Iraqis, something he said “would not have been possible just a couple of months ago.”

Timing is everything in war, as in politics. The draft withdrawal agreement was signed on the eve of the Democratic convention and takes away a lever that anti-war activists had planned to use to push their party back into the White House. And while it’s too soon to know how quickly U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq (and in what numbers), the tentative agreement opens the door for strengthening the American military presence in Afghanistan, where both parties agree it is desperately needed. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops will leave Iraq next year if present trends continue, Pentagon officials say. Defense Secretary Robert Gates may soon decide to divert a pair of 4,000-strong combat brigades — now slated to head to Iraq next spring — to Afghanistan instead.

Yet even if this is the beginning of the end, the war ended up being far from the “cakewalk” some war boosters predicted. More than five years after it began, there remain about 145,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. A total of 4,146 Americans military personnel have died, and 30,324 more have been wounded. There have been more than 100,000 violent Iraqi deaths. The war, even if it were to stop tomorrow, will likely end up costing U.S. taxpayers more than $1 trillion, including the cost of long-term care for wounded veterans.

It is important to acknowledge that the so-called deal remains unfinished, and, even when it is inked, will contain loopholes big enough to drive an M-1 tank through. First, while the Bush Administration has agreed to the 2011 deadline, there are other outstanding issues that must be settled before a final pact is concluded. Key among them is whether or not U.S. personnel in Iraq will be subject to any Iraqi jurisdiction if they are suspected of wrongdoing. U.S. officials initially wanted such protection for U.S. contractors as well as soldiers, but the Iraqis have been steadily peeling away at such immunity. Once these issues are settled, the pact will have to be approved by Iraq’s fractious parliament.

Secondly, the agreement applies only to combat troops, meaning about half of the U.S. military personnel now in Iraq could remain there in supporting and training roles beyond 2011.

Finally, the draft agreement could be derailed by an upsurge in violence. The Iraqis have been telling reporters it contains specific dates, including June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities and towns, and December 31, 2011, for the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country. But Bush Administration officials, having been burned repeatedly since launching the invasion for brandishing overly optimistic predictions, now seem allergic to setting such precise deadlines. They instead prefer to label them “aspirational time horizons.” Given its track record at predicting the course of events in Iraq since March 18, 2003, that’s probably wise.

August 19, 2008 – More than 50 prospective jurors answered questions in federal court in Riverside on Tuesday about whether their views on the Iraq war would affect their verdict for a former Marine sergeant accused of crimes in combat.

By the end of the day, the federal judge and lawyers had questioned 54 members of the jury pool that reached nearly 100 and agreed on 12 jurors and two alternates.

The trial of Jose Luis Nazario Jr., 28, stems from accusations he took part in the killings of four unarmed detainees during Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq, in November 2004.

The former Riverside police officer faces a maximum of 30 years in prison if convicted on the charges of voluntary manslaughter, assault with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.

Under a little-known 2000 law, Nazario is being tried in federal court because he had left the service before he was arrested a year ago. This is the first time a veteran has been tried for actions in combat in civilian court.

The trial is expected to last one to two weeks with opening statements scheduled for Thursday. The one-day break in the case will allow the copyright infringement trial between Mattel Inc., the creator of Barbie, and MGA Entertainment Inc., the creator of Bratz dolls, to finish.

In the brief opening statements made to the jury pool, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Kovats said the fighting was bloody and fierce in Fallujah.

He said Nazario was trained to take prisoner the four men found during a house search.

“Instead he shot and killed and ordered members of his squad to shoot and kill these men,” Kovats said.

Defense attorney Kevin McDermott said the government has the burden to prove that the killings took place.

“Not only are you deciding Jose Nazario’s fate but that of many others,” he told the jury.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson asked each of 54 jurors a list of 14 questions.

He inquired whether they had heard about the case, whether anyone close to them had served in the armed forces and whether their views on the war in Iraq would prevent them from being fair and impartial.

Several prospective jurors said they are against the war and the strain it puts on the men and women who are serving. Many had friends and family serving or who had served. A few were veterans themselves.

August 22, 2008, Riverside, CA – A judge has ordered two Marines to disclose whether they will testify against their former squad leader who is the first to be tried under a federal law that allows the prosecution of former combatants for war crimes.

The two Marines – Sgt. Ryan Weemer and Sgt. Jermaine Nelson – risk being jailed Friday if they refuse to obey the order to testify against Jose Luis Nazario Jr. The two have already been jailed twice for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury looking into allegations that Nazario shot and killed unarmed detainees in November 2004 in Fallujah, Iraq.

Weemer and Nelson haven’t accepted an offer of immunity and therefore do not have protection against self-incrimination. Both face courts-martial on charges of unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty for their alleged roles in the killings.

It’s the latest development in the first-of-its-kind federal trial in which a civilian jury will decide whether the alleged actions of a former service member in combat violated of the rules of engagement.

“It’s going to take a lot of explanation for these folks to understand,” said Kevin McDermott, one of Nazario’s attorneys.

During opening statements Thursday, a prosecutor told the jury that they would hear testimony of several witnesses to help them understand the Marine Corps, such as the differences between a battalion, a regiment and a squad.

“You will get ‘Marine Corps 101,'” said U.S. Assistant Attorney Charles Kovats.

Jurors got their first lesson from Kovats and McDermott during their respective opening statements about the events that led to November 2004 battle of Fallujah, one of the fiercest battles of the Iraq war.

McDermott described the months leading up to the battle, including an incident in which the bodies of private security contractors were burned and hung from a bridge.

Kovats told the jury that Nazario and his Marines were under orders to move into Fallujah and clear it of insurgents on Nov. 9, 2004 – the opening day of the battle for the city.

Kovats described Nazario as a man who killed “unarmed, submissive, docile” detainees and encouraged men under his charge to do the same.

McDermott countered that Nazario killed insurgents in a city where every resident was looking for a fight.

Nazario, 28, is charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter on suspicion of killing or causing others to kill four unarmed detainees. He also faces one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.

He has pleaded not guilty. If convicted of all the charges, he could face more than 10 years in prison.

The case came to light in 2006, when Nazario’s former squadmate Weemer volunteered details to a U.S. Secret Service job interviewer during a lie-detector screening that included a question about the most serious crime he ever committed.

Weemer was ordered this month to stand trial in military court on charges of unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty in the killing of an unarmed detainee in Fallujah. He has pleaded not guilty.

Several Marines allege Nazario shot two Iraqi men who had been detained while his squad searched a house, according to a Naval Criminal Investigative Service criminal complaint.

The complaint claims four Iraqi men were killed during the action.

Nelson, 26, is slated to be court-martialed in December. Although he has not entered a plea in military court, Nelson’s attorney has said his client is innocent.

Nelson and Weemer were jailed in May and June for contempt of court for refusing to testify against Nazario before a federal grand jury believed to be investigating the case. Both were released and returned to Camp Pendleton.

August 12, 2008 – Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that expands its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Josef Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a “revanchist Russia” that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori they would have found a museum still honoring the local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori’s Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia’s invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann’s neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election campaign is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.