First Female Poised to Become 4-Star

June 24, 2008 – Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody, deputy commander and chief of staff of U.S. Army Material Command, is poised to become the first female four-star general in the U.S. military, according to an Army press release.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Monday that the White House has nominated Dunwoody for appointment to the grade of general and assignment as commanding general of AMC at Fort Belvoir, Va.

“This is an important day for the Dunwoody family, the military and the Nation,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey said in the release. “Lt. Gen. Dunwoody’s nomination not only underscores her significant contributions and success throughout 33 years of service, but also shows the level of possible opportunity in our Army’s diverse, quality all-volunteer force.”

Approximately five percent of general officers in the Army are women, which includes mobilized Army Reserve and Army National Guard general officers, the Army release said.

Prior to taking her current assignment, Dunwoody served as the deputy chief of staff, G-4 at the Pentagon, which provides services and support for soldiers.

Dunwoody is a native of New York and received a direct commission after graduating from the State University of New York in 1975.

Since her first assignment in 1976 as a platoon leader at Fort Sill, Okla., she has commanded at every level.

She comes from a family with a long tradition of military service, including her great grandfather, grandfather, father, brother, sister, niece and husband.

“I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement,” Dunwoody said in the release. “I grew up in a family that didn’t know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career … that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform. My focus right now is to be the best deputy I can be.”

The position requires Senate confirmation. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on First Female Poised to Become 4-Star

Editorial Column: Big Oil and the War in Iraq

June 24, 2008 – It took five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers, and the wounding of 30,000 more to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein’s ties to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported last week that several Western oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP, and Chevron, are about to sign no-bid contracts with the Iraqi government. Western oil had a significant stake in Iraqi oil for much of the last century until the government nationalized the industry in 1972. The Associated Press quoted Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit as saying he believed the contracts were a first step toward production-sharing agreements. “These companies are in it for the money, not to make friends,” Gheit said.

This of course blows a hole in another ancient Bush fallacy, the one in which former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said “the oil wells belong to the Iraqi people” and former secretary of State Colin Powell seconded him by saying Iraqi oil “will be held in trust for the Iraqi people.” Former Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz once claimed there was so much oil in Iraq that “When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government.”

No, all that is really happening is that while the American taxpayer is being turned inside out by the war, and while families bury the brave, the corporate colonialists get all the resources. Halliburton, the oil services company which Vice President Dick Cheney once led, last year reported a 49 percent rise in profits, to $3.5 billion.

KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary that provides food, shelter, and laundry services to soldiers, last year reported record profits and is about to share in a new 10-year, $150 billion contract. The controversial North Carolina-based private security firm Blackwater, whose guards shot and killed 17 Iraqis in one incident last year, has crossed the billion-dollar mark in government contracts, charging, according to the Raleigh News and Observer, $1,221 a day for security guards who are actually paid $500 a day.

This is despite repeated charges of waste, overcharging and recklessness, and a degree of patriotism that verges on betrayal. As many veterans were being treated amid appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Halliburton CEO Dave Lesar last year moved from Texas to Dubai. The Globe last March reported on how KBR has avoided paying perhaps half a billion dollars in Social Security and Medicare taxes since the start of the invasion by hiring employees through shell companies in the Cayman Islands.

Now comes Big Oil itself, which is already basking in record profits. Its interest in Iraq, which has the world’s third-largest oil reserves according to the federal government, is utterly transparent. A decade ago, then-Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr said “I’d love Chevron to have access to” the Iraqi oil reserves. A Los Angeles Times news account just before the invasion said, “Maybe it’s a coincidence, but American and British oil companies would be long-term beneficiaries of a successful military offensive . . . Industry officials say Hussein’s ouster would help level the playing field . . . a bonanza for the US-dominated oil-services industry.”

Who will stop the bonanza or at least ensure that it is not an utter windfall for CEOs as US soldiers risk their lives keeping the peace and as Iraqis continue to struggle out of the rubble of the invasion? That is unclear. Of the two presumptive nominees for president, Democrat Barack Obama makes the most noise against oil profiteering and indeed, Republican John McCain has received more money overall from Big Oil. But Obama has received enough campaign contributions to leave it an open question as to how much leadership he would exert. We know Big Oil is in this for the money. Nothing says it is returning to Iraq in the name of the people.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial Column: Big Oil and the War in Iraq

Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner

June 23, 2008 – Getting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network.

“Generally what I say is, ‘I’m holding the armor-piercing R.P.G.,’ ” she said last week in an appearance on “The Daily Show,” referring to the initials for rocket-propelled grenade. ” ‘It’s aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don’t put my story on the air, I’m going to pull the trigger.’ ”

Ms. Logan let a sly just-kidding smile sneak through as she spoke, but her point was serious. Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.

“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS News, said the news division does not get reports from Iraq on television “with enough frequency to justify keeping a very, very large bureau in Baghdad.” He said CBS correspondents can “get in there very quickly when a story merits it.”

In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office.

Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad.

By telephone from Baghdad, Mr. McCarthy said he was not as busy as he was a year ago. A decline in the relative amount of violence “is taking the urgency out” of some of the coverage, he said. Still, he gets on ABC’s “World News” and other programs with stories, including one on Friday about American gains in northern Iraq.

Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq.

Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year.

Ms. Logan said she begged for months to be embedded with a group of Navy Seals, and when she came back with the story, a CBS producer said to her, “One guy in uniform looks like any other guy in a uniform.” In the follow-up phone interview, Ms. Logan said the producer no longer worked at CBS. And in both interviews, she emphasized that many journalists at CBS News are pushing for war coverage, specifically citing Jeff Fager, the executive producer of “60 Minutes.” CBS News won a Peabody Award last week for a “60 Minutes” report about a Marine charged in the killings at Haditha.

On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.”

Coverage of the war in Afghanistan has increased slightly this year, with 46 minutes of total coverage year-to-date compared with 83 minutes for all of 2007. NBC has spent 25 minutes covering Afghanistan, partly because the anchor Brian Williams visited the country earlier in the month. Through Wednesday, when an ABC correspondent was in the middle of a prolonged visit to the country, ABC had spent 13 minutes covering Afghanistan. CBS has spent eight minutes covering Afghanistan so far this year.

Both Ms. Logan and Mr. McCarthy noted that more coalition soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in May than in Iraq. No American television network has a full-time correspondent in Afghanistan, although CNN recently said it would open a bureau in Kabul.

“It’s terrible,” Ms. Logan said in the telephone interview. She called it a financial decision. “We can’t afford to maintain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time,” she said. “It’s so expensive and the security risks are so great that it’s prohibitive.”

Mr. Friedman said coverage of Iraq is enormously expensive, mostly due to the security risks. He said meetings with other television networks about sharing the costs of coverage have faltered for logistical reasons.

Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner

VA Releases Fact Sheet for Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

May 2008 – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed special programs to serve the nation’s newest veterans — the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan — by assisting them with a smooth transition from active duty to civilian life.  VA’s goal is to ensure that every seriously injured or ill serviceman and woman returning from combat receives easy access to benefits and world-class service fostering recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration.  Their contact with VA often begins with priority scheduling for care and, for the most seriously wounded, VA counselors visiting their bedside in military wards before separation to ensure their VA disability payment coverage will be ready the moment they leave active duty.

Approximately 800,000 Discharged Troops Eligible for VA Care

Of the 1.6 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since beginning of the conflicts, 799,791 have been separated from active duty and as civilians routinely became eligible for VA care.  Some 299,585 had used VA health services as of the end of fiscal year 2007.  These patient numbers reflect the significant presence of National Guard and Reserve members serving, with the breakdown of health-care users including 147,508 Reserve or National Guard members released from federal activation versus 152,077 former regular active duty service members.

Benefits and Outreach

For five years after their discharge, combat veterans have special access to VA health care, even those who have no service-connected illness.  Veterans can become “grandfathered” for future access by enrolling with VA during this period.  This covers not only regular active-duty personnel who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, but also Reserve or National Guard members who served in the combat theaters.  Veterans with service-related injuries or illnesses always have access to VA care for the treatment of their service disabilities without any time limit, as do lower-income veterans.  VA offers care through more than 1,400 hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing homes and counseling centers.  Additional information about VA medical eligibility is available at http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility.

In addition to the special medical eligibility, VA’s broad range of benefits include disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation and employment, education, home loan guaranties, automobile and specially adaptive equipment grants, home modification programs for the disabled, life insurance, traumatic injury protection, and survivor benefits.  Information about these programs is available at http://www.vba.va.gov/benefit_facts/index.htm

VA has an ambitious outreach program to ensure separating combat veterans know about these VA benefits.  Each veteran with service in Iraq or Afghanistan receives a letter from Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake after discharge introducing the veteran to VA and its benefits and providing phone numbers and Web sites for more information.

As with all military members, transition briefings prior to discharge acquaint servicemembers with benefits, as do additional pamphlet mailings following separation, and VA has developed brochures, wallet cards and videos.  VA conducts briefings at town hall meetings, family readiness groups and during unit drills near the homes of returning Guard and Reserve members.  Because of the large number of Reserve and Guard members mobilized in this conflict, VA has made a special effort to work with their units to reach transitioning service members at demobilization sites.  To help the governors of each state, VA has trained recently returned veterans to serve as National Guard Bureau liaisons employed by each state to assist their fellow combat veterans.

In 2008, VA launched an effort to track down and contact 550,000 of these veterans who have never used VA care to again remind them about their benefits, including the 5-year eligibility period expansion from three years under 2007 legislation.  Another 17,000 current VA users who were sick or injured while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan will be contacted and VA will offer to appoint a care manager to work with them if they don’t have one already.

“Seamless Transition” Liaisons for the Severely Wounded

To assist wounded military members and their families, VA has placed workers at key military hospitals where severely injured servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan are frequently sent.  These include benefit counselors who help the servicemember obtain VA services as well as social workers who facilitate health care coordination and discharge planning as servicemembers transition from military to VA care.  Under this program, VA staff members serve at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.; National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.; Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Ft. Gordon, Ga.; Brooke Army Medical Center and Center for the Intrepid at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center at Tacoma, Wash.; Darnall Army Medical Center at Ft. Hood, Texas; Evans Army Hospital at Ft. Carson, Colo.; Womack Army Medical Center at Ft. Bragg, N.C.; and Balboa Naval Medical Center and Camp Pendleton Naval Medical Center in San Diego.

VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) have improved collaboration and communication.  VA employees based at military treatment facilities brief service members about VA health benefits, disability compensation, vocational rehabilitation and employment.  Coordinators at each VA benefits regional office and VA medical center work both with the outbased VA counselors and with military discharge staff to ensure a smooth transition to VA services at locations nearest to the veteran’s residence after discharge.  At the VA facilities serving the veteran’s home town, the hospital is alerted when the seriously wounded servicemember is being discharged so that the continuity of his or her medications and therapy is ensured when arriving home.

Responding to the top recommendations of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, co-chaired by former Sen. Robert Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, VA and DoD established a new recovery coordinators office and deployed workers to key military treatment facilities.  Their job cuts across bureaucratic lines and reaches into the private sector as necessary to identify services needed for the rehabilitation of the seriously wounded and ill service member or veteran or to aid their family.  Participating patients may include those with seriously debilitating burns, spinal cord injury, amputation, visual impairment, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.  These recovery coordinators are in addition to 105 patient advocates VA has put in place since June 2007 to ensure a smooth transition of wounded service members through VA’s health care system while also cutting red tape for other benefits.

Medical Conditions of Combat Veterans

Patterns of illness shown in diagnoses of recent combat veterans who have come to VA for care have not suggested significant differences from the types of primary care, chronic conditions or mental health issues seen in earlier combat veterans.  However, careful studies will be required to draw appropriate comparisons using control groups of similar veterans, representative samplings, and other scientific methods.  An early neurological study tested 654 Army veterans before deployment to Iraq in 2003 and again after returning in 2005, finding mild impairments in memory and attention lapses, but significantly faster reaction times when compared to other veterans not deployed to the theater.  These warrant further investigation.  VA also is analyzing combat veterans’ deaths from diseases and accidents in hopes of publishing mortality studies in the future.

Nationally automated data from VA’s payment system for service-connected diseases and disabilities does not distinguish between combat-related injuries and those incurred or worsened while the service member was in non-hostile locations.  Some of the most common service-connected conditions among those who served at some point in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters include musculoskeletal conditions and hearing disorders.

Polytrauma Centers Provide Specialized Care

Improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades often result in devastating injuries, including amputations, sensory loss and brain injury.  Modern body armor and advances in front-line trauma care have enabled combat veterans to survive severe attacks that in prior wars were fatal.  In response to the demand for specialized services, VA expanded its four traumatic brain injury centers in Minneapolis, Palo Alto, Richmond and Tampa to become polytrauma centers encompassing additional specialties to treat patients for multiple complex injuries.  VA is building a fifth major center in San Antonio.  The existing centers are supplemented by 17 polytrauma network sites and polytrauma clinic support teams around the country providing state-of-the-art treatment closer to injured veterans’ homes.

Polytrauma centers treat traumatic brain injury alone or in combination with amputation, blindness, or other visual impairment, complex orthopedic injuries, auditory and vestibular disorders, and mental health concerns.  VA has added clinical expertise to address the special problems that the multi-trauma combat injured patient may face.  This can include intensive psychological support treatment for both patient and family, intensive case management, improvements in the treatment of vision problems, and rehabilitation using the latest high-tech specialty prostheses.  Polytrauma teams bring together experts to provide innovative, personalized treatment to help the injured service member or veteran achieve optimal function and independence.

The polytrauma network sites are supported by a polytrauma telehealth network, which allows remote clinical and educational activities by way of state-of-the-art videoconferencing capabilities. This ensures that specialty expertise is available throughout the system of care and that care is provided at a location and time that is most accessible to the patient.

VA’s polytrauma centers had treated 487 veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan through fiscal year 2007.

Traumatic Brain Injury

Because brain injury is recognized as the signature injury of the current conflict, VA launched an educational initiative to provide its clinicians a broad base of knowledge with which to identify potential traumatic brain injury patients, mechanisms for effective care, and a better understanding of patients who experience this condition.  VA has made training mandatory for physicians and other key staff in primary care, mental health and rehabilitation programs.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can be caused without any visible injuries when explosives jar the brain inside the skull.  Symptoms can range from headaches, irritability, and sleep disorders to memory problems and depression.  When a combat veteran from the current conflict presents for medical care, an alert in VA’s electronic records system prompts clinicians to ask if the veteran ever lost consciousness in the combat theater, beginning a series of screening questions designed to identify those at risk of undetected TBI for referral and a thorough workup.  Early estimates indicate a third of the veterans who screen positive are ultimately found to have suffered a traumatic brain injury, representing less than six per cent of all combat theater veterans screened, but VA believes it is an important approach to improve detection of mild TBI that may otherwise go unrecognized.  More data will need to be analyzed over time to gather a true picture of prevalence of mild TBI.

The more serious TBI patients may be treated in VA’s polytrauma centers.  Through the end of fiscal year 2007, 460 of the polytrauma center patients had brain involvement in their injuries.

Mental Health Care and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

About one-third of these combat veterans who seek care from VA have a possible diagnosis of a mental disorder, and VA has significantly expanded its counseling and mental health services.  VA has launched new programs, including dozens of new mental health teams based in VA medical centers focused on early identification and management of stress-related disorders, as well as the recruitment of about 100 combat veterans in its Readjustment Counseling Service to provide briefings to transitioning servicemen and women regarding military-related readjustment needs.

In less than a year of operation, a new suicide hotline operated by VA at 800-273-TALK (800-273-8255) had received 37,200 calls and recorded 720 “rescues,” or prevented suicides.  VA’s suicide hotline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to help any veteran in need.  In addition, VA has suicide prevention coordinators at each of its medical centers.

VA’s Environmental Epidemiology Service is engaged in a study of the causes of death of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, including suicide.  From the beginning of the war through the end of 2005 there were 144 known suicides among these new veterans. This number translates into a rate that is not statistically different from the rate for age, sex, and race matched individuals from the general population.  Nevertheless, VA takes the position that one suicide among those who have served their country is too much and it emphasizes suicide prevention activities.  To decrease instances of suicide, VA is providing enhanced access to high quality mental health care in conjunction with prevention programs, ranging from from training VA employees about suicide risk factors and warning signs to setting an access standard of screening those who present with any mental health issue in less than 24 hours.  Altogether, VA has more than 200 mental health providers whose jobs are specifically devoted to preventing suicide among veterans.

Many of the challenges facing the soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are stressors that have been identified and studied in veterans of previous wars.  VA has developed world-class expertise in treating chronic mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Post-traumatic stress involves a normal set of reactions to a trauma such as war. Sometimes it becomes a disorder with the passage of time when feelings or issues related to the trauma are not dealt with and are suppressed by the individual.  This can result in problems readjusting to community life following the trauma.  Since the war began, VA has activated dozens of new PTSD programs around the country to assist veterans in dealing with the emotional toll of combat.  In addition, 209 “vet centers” provide easy access to readjustment counseling in consumer-friendly facilities apart from traditional VA medical centers.

One early scientific study estimated the risk for PTSD from service in the Iraq war was 18 percent, while the estimated risk for PTSD from the Afghanistan mission was 11 percent.  Data from multiple sources now indicate that approximately 10 to 15 percent of soldiers develop PTSD after deployment to Iraq and another 10 percent have significant symptoms of PTSD, depression or anxiety and may benefit from care.  Alcohol misuse and relationship problems add to these rates.  Combat veterans are at higher risk for psychiatric problems than military personnel serving in noncombat locations, and more frequent and more intensive combat is associated with higher risk.  With military pre- and post-deployment health assessment programs seeking to destigmatize mental health treatment, coupled with simplified access to VA care for combat veterans after discharge, experts believe initial high prevalence likely will decrease over time.

Studies of PTSD patients in general have suggested as many as half may enjoy complete remission and the majority of the remainder will improve.  Research has led to scientifically developed treatment guidelines covering a variety of modern therapies with which clinicians have had success.  Treatments range from psychological first aid to a “talking treatment” called prolonged exposure therapy.  Cognitive processing therapy is an additional approach.  Psychopharmacology may include medications such as Zoloft or Paxil — with newer drugs under studies now in progress.

VA Research Benefits Combat Veterans

VA researchers have developed a comprehensive agenda to develop new treatments and tools for doctors to ease pain, improve access and address the full range of health issues of today’s combat veterans.  Some of the current research projects include:

   • testing new drugs for treating traumatic brain injuries and new ways to improve memory and attention;
   • cutting-edge technology with microelectronics and robotics to create lighter and more functional prostheses that look, feel and respond more like real arms and legs;
   • developing a biohybrid limb that combines regenerated tissue, lengthened bone and implanted sensors to harness amputees’ own brain signals so they can better control their artificial limbs; and
   • developing new pain treatments to benefit those with severe burns or spinal cord injuries.

Additional Resources

VA Research http://www.research.va.gov
Combat Veterans Information http://www.va.gov/Environagents/page.cfm?pg=16
Polytrauma Centers http://www.polytrauma.va.gov Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder http://www.ncptsd.va.gov Survivors Benefits http://www.va.gov/opa/fact/survivor-benefits.asp
Women Veterans Information http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Topics/Women/
And http://www.va.gov/wvhp/page.cfm?pg=26

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on VA Releases Fact Sheet for Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

Chairman Filner Says First Step in Preventing Violent Deaths is Data on Suicides

June 21, 2008 – When Veterans Administration Secretary James Peake and other VA officials came under fire recently in congressional hearings on veteran suicides, one thing became clear — information on the actual number of veterans taking their own lives was dismally lacking.

This was despite the fact that such information holds implications for everything from the VA health care system to how we deal with post-traumatic stress disorders experienced by many Iraq war veterans.

But not knowing the numbers isn’t just a failing of the VA. The fact is, the United States has no comprehensive, nationwide system for tracking suicides – or, for that matter, homicides, which are linked with domestic disputes, gang violence or violence against children.

About 50,000 people die every year from these kinds of violent acts – thousands more than die from car crashes. Yet a federal reporting system (which includes the 50 states) for fatalities from motor vehicle crashes has been in place for more than 30 years, and knowledge from that system has contributed to safer roads and the dramatic decline in automobile fatalities.

As chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) said the first step is to understand the scope and extent of the problem of veteran suicide. The same holds true for every other form of violent death. We must be able to identify troubling or even dangerous, trends that lead to violent deaths so we can help reduce the tens of thousands of productive life years that America loses annually to violence.

A small program called the National Violent Death Reporting System, or NVDRS, offers an important step toward improving knowledge. This system collects data on violent deaths from only 17 states, including Wisconsin. That’s all the funding the program has available right now. Nevertheless, the NVDRS is the only system in the U.S. that categorically gathers, links and analyzes data from coroner reports, death certificates, law enforcement records, crime labs and social agencies.

By linking the careful work of these different entities, NVDRS gives us a better understanding of when, where, why and how violent deaths occur in our communities and the participating states, as well as of who is at risk. In this way, it is a kind of electronic central nervous system, providing policymakers and community leaders with insights that can be instrumental in reducing the tragic burden of violence.

In the case of veteran suicide, the Veterans Administration is now taking steps to put the NVDRS data to use more quickly. In testimony before the Veterans Affairs Committee in May, Peake said that the department will now obtain data on veteran suicides from NVDRS on a monthly basis, thus allowing the VA to identify trends and take action more swiftly.

While that is good news, the financial realities facing the NVDRS system itself are not.

The current federal funding is limited, even though more states would like to join and eight have already filed applications. While state-specific information clearly provides value to local officials, national data from all 50 states are necessary to create a comprehensive nationwide system that can inform and evaluate violence prevention programs.

To put us on the path toward making this a truly federal program requires an increase of only $4 million for fiscal year 2009, which begins Oct. 1. That would allow more than half of the states in the U.S. to participate – a significant milestone. We recognize that additional funding can be challenging to find, yet this amount is quite modest

We urge Congress to provide this critical, additional funding. Without broadening participation to more states, thousands of lives remain at risk and the burden of suicide and homicide will continue.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Chairman Filner Says First Step in Preventing Violent Deaths is Data on Suicides

Witnesses Link Chemical to Ill US Soldiers Near Oil Refineries in Iraq

June 2, 2008, Washington – US soldiers assigned to guard a crucial part of Iraq’s oil infrastructure became ill after exposure to a highly toxic chemical at the plant, witnesses testified at a Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill.

“These soldiers were bleeding from the nose, spitting blood,” said Danny Langford, an equipment technician from Texas brought to work at the Qarmat Ali Water treatment plant in 2003. “They were sick.”

“Hundreds of American soldiers at this site were contaminated” while guarding the plant, Langford said, including members of the Indiana National Guard.

Langford is one of nine Americans who accuse KBR, the lead contractor on the Qarmat Ali project and one of the largest defense contractors in Iraq, of knowingly exposing them to sodium dichromate, an orange, sandlike chemical that is a potentially lethal carcinogen. Specialists say even short-term exposure to the chemical can cause cancer, depress an individual’s immune system, attack the liver, and cause other ailments.

Yesterday’s hearing – one among several organized to hold contractors accountable for alleged malfeasance in Iraq – was chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. “Hundreds of US troops, who may not even know of their exposure to sodium dichromate that could one day result in a horrible disease, cancers, and death,” he said.

Roughly 250 American soldiers were believed to have come in contact with the chemical, according to Defense Department documents. Sodium dichromate is the same substance that poisoned residents in Hinkley, Calif., an incident made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich” in 2000.

In Iraq, the chemical was used as an antirust coating for pipes that supply water to the oil fields. After the 2003 US-led invasion, looters raided the Qarmat Ali facility; afterward, the chemical was found strewn around the facility and its grounds.

Langford and his former colleagues have said KBR supervisors initially told them the chemical was a “mild irritant.” The company, however, eventually acknowledged that sodium dichromate was a potentially deadly substance and moved to clean up the site.

KBR has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. The company has insisted the safety of its workers and the troops they work with are its “highest priority.”

After KBR began cleaning up the site, it tested its workers for exposure. The US military also took blood and urine samples from 137 soldiers and civilians who were at the plant. Ten soldiers declined to be tested, and 14 were unavailable, according to the congressional testimony about the exposure provided by officials from the Department of Defense.

The Pentagon has said that the troops’ exposure to sodium dichloride at the Iraqi facility did not appear to pose any long-term threat.

Last year, Ellen Embrey – deputy assistant defense secretary for Force Pealth Protection and Readiness, an office set up specifically to deal with such long-term health issues – told a congressional subcommittee that the test results from the soldiers showed “no specific abnormalities” and that “no long-term health effects are expected” from the exposure.
Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, the Deputy Director for Force Health Protection and Readiness, told the Globe in an interview earlier this year that the samples from the soldiers were brought to the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine in Aberdeen, Md., and that 98 percent showed the “normal range” of chromium. Yesterday, Kilpatrick said physical exams on the soldiers showed “no definitive signs or symptoms . . . that would indicate chromium exposure.”

In yesterday’s hearing, however, Langford described for the first time how soldiers guarding the facility had the same symptoms as those who had dangerous levels of exposure to the chemical, complaints that are the foundation for the workers’ lawsuit.

“The chromium of Iraq is going to be the same thing as Agent Orange of Vietnam,” Langford said after the hearing. “I want something done for them.”

Edward Blacke, who served as KBR’s health, safety, and environmental coordinator for the Qarmat Ali project, said he saw soldiers with “continuous bloody noses, spitting up of blood, coughing, irritation of the noses, eyes, throat, and lungs, shortness of breath.”

Max Costa, chairman of the Department of Environmental Medicine at New York University, told the committee that ordinary blood and urine tests would not have detected heavy levels of sodium dichromate exposure after a few days. He said that the military would have had to conduct a highly specialized red blood cell test within four months of the exposure to determine the soldiers’ risk of illness.

“Most people don’t get it right,” said Costa, after the hearing. “It is not an established test that medical labs normally do.”

It was not clear yesterday whether the more specialized tests were conducted on the soldiers. The Army lab in Aberdeen is not accredited to conduct those tests, but may have sent the samples elsewhere, according to Defense officials familiar with the procedures there.

Kilpatrick has said his office is keeping records so that any soldier with medical problems that appear to be related to sodium dichromate exposure could make a case for receiving free care from a veterans hospital.

But Dorgan said yesterday that the Pentagon has not done enough to monitor the health of the soldiers and ensure that KBR and other contractors are putting safety first.

“It is almost unbelievable,” the senator said during the hearing. “We know that there has been exposure of workers and soldiers to a deadly chemical, and there has been, in my judgment, lack of accountability by those who caused the exposure and lack of accountability at the Department of Defense, regrettably.”

Dorgan began investigating the workers’ allegations of sodium dichromate exposure after The Boston Globe reported on the case in March.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Witnesses Link Chemical to Ill US Soldiers Near Oil Refineries in Iraq

Editorial Column: The Real McCain

June 22, 2008 – It is a vintage John McCain performance. Standing in a light-filled atrium at the University of Denver, McCain is espousing his vision for America’s future relations with the world. He hits all the right notes, citing liberal icon John F Kennedy and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. He strikes a muscular tone against America’s enemies, yet tempers it with restraint. He speaks of a ‘common vision’ among nations. ‘I want us to rise to the challenges of our time, as generations before us rose to theirs,’ he says. He addresses the audience as ‘my friends’ and promises a safer, more reasonable world. ‘It still remains within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited,’ he concludes. As the crowd applaud, McCain plunges into the throng to pump hands and sign autographs.

Welcome to the John McCain show 2008. It’s powerful stuff, portraying McCain as the decent patriot of the middle ground and a steady hand for difficult times. For a lot of Americans – including many Democrats – it is a beguiling vision. They see a war hero whose courage was forged in a North Vietnamese POW camp. They see a maverick who spoke against the tortures of Abu Ghraib. They see a reformer who acts against lobbyists and political favours. They see a politician who has spent a lifetime serving his country and won a place in the hearts of the nation.

Now McCain is also trying to win the White House. He has taken his campaign to places far from the projected Republican road map to victory. He has spoken in the ‘black belt’ of rural Alabama. He has toured Appalachian coal country to talk about poverty. He has gone to the hippy enclave of Oregon to lecture on global warming. In short, he is a Republican that even liberals can love. And many do. McCain’s appeal to America’s vital middle ground could easily propel him to the Oval Office.

But there is another, very different side to John McCain. Away from the headlines and the stirring speeches, a less familiar figure lurks. It is a McCain who plans to fight on in Iraq for years to come and who might launch military action against Iran. This is the McCain whose campaign and career has been riddled with lobbyists and special interests. It is a McCain who has sided with religious and political extremists who believe Islam is evil and gays are immoral. It is a McCain who wants to appoint extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and see abortion banned. This McCain has a notoriously volatile temper that has scared some senior members of his own party. If McCain becomes the most powerful man in the world it would be wise to know what lies behind his public mask, to look at the dark side of John McCain.

John McCain is an American hero in an age of war and terrorism. As young Americans return in bodybags from Iraq and Iranian mullahs cook up uranium, an old soldier like McCain seems a natural choice in a dangerous world. He is the son and grandson of warriors. Both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. He was even born on a military base, on 29 August 1936, in Panama. And his life story reads like a movie script. The young, rascally McCain, nicknamed ‘McNasty’ by his classmates, attended the elite West Point military academy. He became a navy pilot, long before Tom Cruise made ‘Top Guns’ famous, and began his first combat duty in Vietnam in 1966, carrying out countless missions. Then came disaster. He was shot down and held prisoner for five years by brutal North Vietnamese captors. In his stiff gait and damaged arms, he still bears the scars of their tortures. His CV for the White House is written in his suffering as much as in his career as a senator.

That military legacy has made John McCain a legend. But it has not turned him into a peacemaker, at a time when most Americans desperately want the war to end. Anyone hoping for a new president who will quickly bring America’s troops home from Iraq had better look elsewhere. McCain has always supported the invasion of Iraq and he wants to support it until at least 2013, or perhaps for many years beyond. He believes withdrawal would be a surrender to terrorists.

That warlike spirit was on full display in Denver when McCain’s speech was interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters. They stood up, unfurling banners and shouting for a withdrawal from Iraq. When it happened a third time, McCain had had enough. In a voice suddenly filled with steely resolve, McCain broke from his carefully scripted speech and gripped the lectern. He looked out at the audience and spoke slowly. ‘I will never surrender in Iraq,’ he rasped. ‘Our American troops will come home with victory and with honour.’ The crowd cheered and chanted: ‘John McCain! John McCain!’ It was a perfect moment for unrepentant supporters of the Iraq invasion and a McCain who still smarts from defeat in Vietnam. No retreat. No surrender. This time America will win.

McCain believes in projecting American military power abroad. So it is no wonder that the neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq have now regrouped around him. McCain’s main foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, who was executive director of the shadowy Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Other leading neocons on board include John Bolton, America’s belligerent former UN ambassador, Bill Kristol, editor of the Neocon bible the Weekly Standard, and Max Boot, who has pushed for a US version of the old British Colonial Office. Another close McCain adviser is former CIA director James Woolsey, who has openly advocated bombing Syria.

Such a group of warlike counsellors has raised fears that McCain may strike Iran to stop its suspected quest for a nuclear weapon, triggering a fresh war in the Middle East. The Republican candidate has openly joked about bombing Tehran. It was just over a year ago, in the tiny borough of Murrells Inlet in South Carolina, and McCain faced a small crowd in one of his characteristic town hall meetings. As McCain stood on the stage, one man asked him about the ‘real problem’ in the Middle East. ‘When are we going to send an airmail message to Tehran?’ the man pleaded. McCain laughed and – to the tune of the Beach Boys’ classic ‘Barbara Ann’ – began to sing: ‘Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.’ But some think McCain’s joke may well become policy. ‘I think a McCain presidency would be very likely to strike Iran,’ says Cliff Schecter, author of a new book, The Real McCain

McCain is still most at home with soldiers. Earlier this year I watched him on the stump in Charleston, South Carolina. He chose to speak at the Citadel, an elite military college, where old tanks and retired rockets dotted the lawns and squads of young recruits jogged around its quads. At the small rally McCain was relaxed and at home and the crowd loved him: here was their war hero made flesh. Here was a man unafraid to strike first.

John McCain’s second bid for the presidency has been a long time coming. After being beaten by Bush in 2000, the Senator from Arizona has returned to the fray more determined than ever. And central to his success has been his media strategy.

Three years ago I followed McCain to a fund-raising dinner in Hartford, Connecticut, a wealthy city of insurers and bankers. McCain spoke at a private club downtown, giving an early version of his stump speech and already being introduced as the next president of the United States. He gave an impromptu press conference, bantering gamely with reporters. When that was done, aides tried to drag him away, but McCain raced across the room and sought out a local reporter to clarify an answer he had given. The journalist, unused to such personal attention from a potential president, looked like a spellbound deer in the headlights as McCain spoke to him for a further 10 minutes. The fact is, McCain loves journalists and they love him back. That is how the myth of the moderate maverick – the most powerful tool in his political armoury – has come to be.

Nothing has changed since that moment in Hartford. McCain’s campaign bus – dubbed the Straight Talk Express, just as it was in 2000 – is filled with journalists who travel at the back with McCain, relaxing on a U-shaped couch. McCain recently hosted a barbecue for journalists at his Arizona ranch. As TV anchors and newspaper reporters sipped beer and cocktails under a desert sun, McCain stood at the grill and literally served up their daily nourishment. He is someone you could have a beer with, in stark contrast to Barack Obama, who keeps his press entourage firmly at arm’s length. Yet McCain’s riskier strategy has worked like a dream. Reporters often overlook McCain’s errors and flaps – especially in national security – clinging instead to the narrative of an unconventional patriot. ‘The media love him, especially his war record. He is the GI Joe doll they played with as kids,’ says Professor Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.

There is also a little-reported back-up plan for reporters who do not toe the line: sheer aggression. A recent Washington Post piece on a land deal by one of McCain’s allies prompted a brutal response from the McCain campaign. Without disproving facts, they labelled the story ‘shameful’ and a ‘smear job’. When Newsweek ran a story on the Obama camp’s perception of McCain’s weak spots, McCain’s team struck again. This time the story was ‘offensive’ and ‘scurrilous’. The campaign is willing to strike out abroad, recently persuading one European newspaper editor to scrap a review of Schecter’s book. For the fact is, McCain’s benevolent public image is no accident. It has been carefully crafted and is forcefully policed. ‘This has gone on for years. This is an image he has worked very hard to maintain,’ says Professor Seth Masket of the University of Denver.

John McCain has not always had his own way. His current reformist image was born from a career-threatening scandal that almost saw his political ambitions strangled at birth. It was 1987, and John McCain was a promising newcomer in the Republican party, still finding his feet in a world very different from his military life. Charlie Keating, a wealthy businessman, was a long-time friend and financial contributor to McCain’s campaigns. When Keating was caught up in the disastrous collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, he turned to his political friends, asking them to talk to federal regulators. McCain, along with four others, made the mistake of doing just that. When a massive government bailout of Lincoln followed, so too did public outrage. It almost destroyed McCain’s career. Yet the Keating Five scandal also gave birth to a new John McCain: the reformer. In an astonishing transformation he now became the arch-champion of campaign finance reform.

Yet much of the dark side of John McCain lies behind the closed doors of K Street, a Washington DC boulevard lined with glitzy buildings and home to the capital’s booming lobbyist industry. A close examination of McCain’s campaign workers, political allies and backers reveals a dense world of dubious loyalties, uber-lobbyists and powerful corporate interests. McCain is very much at home with K Street’s sharp-suited denizens, their wealthy clients and their art of influence-peddling.

Take one of McCain’s closest aides and senior counsel, Charlie Black. For decades he worked as one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington DC. His firm represented some of the most unpleasant dictators in modern history, among them the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire’s kleptomaniac president Joseph Mobutu. Then there’s Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, the man leading the effort to capture the White House. Davis, too, has been a top lobbyist. His firm’s clients ranged from Ukrainian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov to telecoms giants such as Comsat and Verizon.

But Black and Davis are far from alone. McCain’s staff was so riddled with lobbyists that at least four have resigned because of their contacts and businesses. They included Doug Goodyear, McCain’s convention chairman, whose company was paid to improve the image of Burma’s brutal dictatorship.

The make-up of McCain’s team has set alarm bells ringing among Washington’s campaign watchdogs. ‘We need to know who is advising the candidates and why,’ says Josh Israel, a lobbyist investigator at the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI). ‘Rather than advising them based on what is good for the candidate or the country, are they instead looking for their other interests?’ McCain’s campaign has even had to bring in special rules to cut down on the number of lobbyists on his team.

Nor is it just campaign workers who have extensive links to the lobbying industry. McCain’s financial backers do, too. A recent survey of 106 elite fundraisers for McCain revealed that one in six were lobbyists. Watchdog groups such as the CPI believe McCain has a long history of helping people who also happen to be his wealthy backers, including several large landowners in Arizona, Nevada and California who have profited from McCain-linked property deals. ‘McCain has a long way to go to line up his reformist image with the actual reality,’ Israel says. Sceptics might conclude that McCain’s post-Keating career represents a cosmetic makeover, not a true conversion.

John McCain is level with Barack Obama in the polls in a year when Democrats should be a certainty. He is even winning in key swing states like Florida. His appeal to America’s middle ground remains strong. These are people like self-confessed moderate Keith Gregory, 24, who filed out of the Denver auditorium as a convert. The young student, dressed in a freshly pressed suit and tie, had been deeply impressed by McCain’s speech. ‘I like him more than before,’ Gregory said. ‘He talked very sensibly and openly about the issues.’ This is McCain’s great strength and also one of his greatest myths. Few see McCain as an ideological warrior in America’s culture wars. Unlike Bush, he is not a born-again Christian. In McCain’s inner circle – unlike Bush’s – there are no group prayer meetings. Yet the reality is that McCain is a social conservative who has actively sought out the far right of his party and forged alliances with Christian extremists.

Just look at McCain’s ‘pastor problems’. He has enthusiastically sought the political blessing of some of the most conservative religious figures in the country. McCain gave the 2006 commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University, a college that has taught creationism alongside science. McCain also courted and won the endorsement of Texan preacher John Hagee, despite Hagee blaming Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans’s liberal attitude towards gays. Hagee believes the disaster was God’s judgement on the sinful city. Another McCain-backer, Ohio preacher Rod Parsley, has spouted hate about Muslims. Parsley, whom McCain called a ‘spiritual guide’, believes America was founded partly in order to destroy Islam. He has called Mohammed a ‘mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil’ and has supported prosecuting people who commit adultery. Though McCain later repudiated the endorsements of Parsley and Hagee, he did so only after bad headlines threatened his moderate image. Most of Hagee’s and Parsley’s views were widely known from public speeches or books. It was not their bigotry that caught the campaign out, it was the reporting of it. ‘McCain has had links with these religious figures who are just way, way out of the mainstream,’ says Cliff Schecter.

There are other nasties, too. McCain is friends with G Gordon Liddy, one of the Watergate burglars. Liddy, who once plotted to kill a left-wing journalist, has hosted a fundraiser with McCain in his own home. McCain also endorsed and campaigned for Alabama politician George Wallace Jr in 2005, despite Wallace’s links to racist groups. Wallace has praised and spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white-power group that opposes inter-racial marriage and promotes white racial purity. If a moderate voter were seeking to judge a politician by the company he keeps, then McCain keeps some very odd company indeed.

But it is not really that strange. McCain himself holds deeply conservative views, including proposing teaching the creationist idea of Intelligent Design in schools alongside evolution. McCain has also always been anti-abortion. He believes the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that legalised abortion was a bad decision. McCain has vowed to continue the Bush policy of appointing extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and many fear a McCain presidency will see Roe vs Wade overturned. ‘McCain is neither moderate nor a maverick when it comes to a woman’s right to choose. He’s just plain wrong,’ said Nancy Keenan, president of abortion rights group Naral.

On the environment, too, McCain is not the green warrior some might think. He has voted against tightening fuel efficiency standards for American cars. The League of Conservation Voters gives McCain an environmental rating of 24 per cent; Obama gets 86 per cent. ‘His rhetoric does not match his voting record on this issue,’ says David Sandretti, a director of the League. ‘McCain is better than Bush, but that’s not much of a yardstick, because the current
president is abysmal.’

But it is not just McCain’s politics that are disturbing. It is his personality, too. For McCain has a secret reputation as a man with a ferocious, unpredictable temper. He is a man who has a knack for pursuing vendettas against those he thinks have slighted him, even if they are lowly aides.

The list of worrying incidents is long. In 1995 he ended up almost physically scuffling with aged Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate floor. And, according to some accounts, in 2006 he had a fight with Arizona congressman Rick Renzi, throwing blows in a scrap whose details have only recently been detailed in Schecter’s book. Schecter unearthed another unpleasant incident from 1992 in which McCain, tired after a long day’s campaign, reacted badly to his wife Cindy teasing him about his baldness. ‘At least I don’t plaster on the make-up like a trollop, you cunt,’ McCain snapped in front of eyewitnesses. Schecter says he has three sources for the story. McCain’s campaign have denied it.

Such public outbursts, and many other private ones, have concerned people even in his own party. Former New Hampshire Republican Senator Robert Smith publicly voiced his concerns, once saying McCain’s temper ‘ … would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger’. That sentiment was echoed by Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran, who told a Boston newspaper: ‘The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.’

Yet McCain is still campaigning successfully as the lovable, maverick patriot. It is a strategy his staff believe will win the White House. So the tricks and stunts keep on coming.

A few weeks ago a letter was delivered to Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters. It was from McCain and in gracious language it offered to hold weekly ‘town hall’ meetings across America where he and Obama would appear side by side. It would be a far cry from the rancorous circus of televised debates. The audience would be neutral independents. The questions would be random. It would summon back a golden age of gentlemanly politics. ‘I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility,’ McCain wrote.

Like the Denver speech, it was a vintage McCain ploy: superbly geared to his everyman image of decency. But the true McCain is far different. His dark side is real and Democrats will need to expose it if America is to avoid a third successive term of extreme conservative government. Now Democrat activists are pushing out their argument that McCain is a conservative wolf in a moderate sheep’s clothing. They are highlighting the temper, the pro-war ideology and the links to lobbyists. ‘We think he just means four more years of Bush,’ says Karen Finney, a director at the Democratic National Committee. Finney’s job is to convince Americans they have got McCain wrong, that they have been fooled. She and her fellow activists have less than four months to succeed. But for now, as America gears up to one of the most important elections in its history, McCain’s dark side remains largely hidden behind closed doors.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Editorial Column: The Real McCain

June 23 VCS Update: Administration Experiments on Our Veterans and Tortures Enemy POW’s

June 23, 2008 – This week’s update contains four critical news articles, including VA’s failure to provide oversight of drug experiments on our veterans, VA’s rejection of nearly all claims for veterans exposed to secret germ warfare tests, how doctors confirm enemy prisoners of war were tortured, and how the conflict in Afghanistan continues spiraling out of control.

1 – Veteran Guinea Pigs? Last week ABC News revealed how VA uses our own veterans suffering from PTSD as guinea pigs for testing an anti-smoking drug that increases the risk of suicide. VA was very slow in telling veterans about these fatal side-effects. VCS deplores the VA’s failure to protect the rights of our veterans. We are demanding that VA suspend the tests and that Congress investigate the lack of oversight.

Please make a gift today to VCS so we can continue fighting for the rights of our veterans in Washington, DC.

2 – VA Rejects Nearly All SHAD Disability Claims. The Associated Press revealed that VA has only approved 6{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of health claims for SHAD veterans exposed to chemical and germ warfare tests during secret experiments code named Project 112. “These numbers are shocking, disgraceful and disappointing and reflect poorly on VA,” said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

Please make a gift today to VCS so we can continue fighting for a fairer and faster VA claims system for our veterans.

3 – Scientific Evidence of Torture. In other disturbing news, a new Physicians for Human Rights report shows overwhelming medical evidence of torture in 11 former enemy prisoners of war held by the U.S. “This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” retired Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the official investigation of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq in 2004, wrote in the preface. We ask, does this report rise to the level of strong evidence of war crimes? Tell us what you think.

Please give to VCS today so we can work to protect our civil liberties. VCS rejects torture by anyone anywhere.

4 – The Forgotten Afghanistan War. Are the Taliban Fighters on the rebound? “Last week’s dramatic jailbreak of approximately 400 Taliban in Kandahar – an embarrassment for which the Canadians blamed the Afghans who blamed the Pakistanis – is a symptom of a bigger problem. The insurgency is getting stronger…”

As Thomas Paine once said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

Veterans for Common Sense fights on the front lines here at home supporting our veterans, our human rights, and our freedom. Please set up a monthly or quarterly donation today to fund our important mission.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on June 23 VCS Update: Administration Experiments on Our Veterans and Tortures Enemy POW’s

Authors of ‘Three Trillion Dollar War’ Answer Questions About Cost of Iraq Conflict

When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Americans were told Iraqi oil would cover the costs of the war and rebuilding. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed at estimates of $100 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes raised a stir in 2006 by estimating the real cost of the war to be $1 trillion. That estimate has been tripled and the title of their new book is “The Three Trillion Dollar War.”

Q1: The invasion caused about a million deaths and many disabilities to the invaded people. The material losses included important archeological artifacts. Someday, hopefully, the invaders will be held legally responsible for it all. Reparations. Justly, death benefits should be based on the larger of standard benefits for invader and invaded. $4 trillion war?  Submitted by Dennis Couzin from Berlin, Germany

A1: When you look at the destruction of art and priceless artifacts, it is clear that many costs of this war simply cannot be quantified. But they are costs, nonetheless. Of course the loss of life cannot be really quantified either. We do address this issue in chapter 6 of the book. Answered 04/16/08 12:05:58 by Linda Bilmes

Q2: While I understand your tabulation and overall methodology, aren’t you getting a lot of shock value from simply stating the cost at $3T? After all, over the 70+ years these costs will hit the Treasury, the average annual cost is about $43B–hardly as shocking. I realize these cost are front loaded, but there are other long-term Federal costs that are far larger. BTW: I’m not a war supporter. I just can’t stand sensationalized stories. Submitted by Dave from Washington, DC

A2: We actually tried to be very conservative. You can easily support a number that is much higher and we decided not to do that. The $3 trillion is really simple: it is just the sum of the $800bn we will have spent by the end of 2008, the present value of a conservative estimate of health care and disability compensation for the veterans, plus the cost of ongoing fighting, replacing military equipment, and paying interest on the money we borrowed. This reaches $3 Trillion. For example, oil prices have gone up from $25 before the war to over $100 barrel now. The war changed the supply&demand equation and put upward pressure on oil prices. But in our book we only attribute $5-$10 of this increase to Iraq, because we don’t want to be sensationalist. Answered 04/16/08 12:03:11 by Linda Bilmes

Q3: As an American living in London, it’s easy to see that the war in Iraq has badly damaged the American “brand”. This has to be affecting the bottom line at corporations associated with the US (McDonald’s, Nike, Ford, United Airlines, etc.). Is there reason to believe that these corporations are concerned about this issue and are lobbying for a saner foreign policy? I’m especially interested because I’m skeptical that the grass roots has much influence on foreign policy decisions made in DC. Submitted by Brad Duchaine from London, UK

A3: I lived in London for 12 years and so I understand your question very well. Anecdotally we know that US businesses are concerned about rising anti-Americanism, but it is difficult to quantify the impact on business. What the corporate world is beginning to realize is that the war is having a negative effect on the US and global economy, and of course this is something they do care about. The best way to get them involved in to draw the link between the war and the economy, which is one of the reasons we wrote the book. Answered 04/16/08 11:59:26 by Linda Bilmes

Q4: You’d also have to put $3T into context. Over the 70 or so years these costs will be incurred, the cumulative US GDP will be roughly $2,000 – 4,000 trillion (quadrillions!). The Federal budget is usually about 20{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of GDP. So that’s $400 – 800 trillion in Federal revenue. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) will consume over 50{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the budget. That’s $200 – 400 trillion. So, next to that, $3T isn’t so shocking—especially when the majority of this money is recirculated into the US economy. Again, I’m not advocating the war or spending $3T to “win” it. I’m just questioning, given the proper context, if the amount is so over the top. Submitted by Dave from Washington DC

A4: No, the money is not recirculated into the economy. It mostly goes to pay Filipino and Nepali contractors in Iraq to do laundry, cook meals, drive trucks and buses, clean dormitories, repair the 42,000 light vehicles stationed there and of course to pay world oil prices for fuel to keep our vehcicles,tanks, humvees, MRAPs, helicopters and aircraft fueled. The US is a wealthy country, but even we cannot afford to squander $3 trillion into a war that has very little benefit for the US economy. If we were spending that money in the US – building our infrastructure, for example, then it would have a net positive multiplier for the US. Answered 04/16/08 11:56:04 by Linda Bilmes

Q5: what are we trying to achieve? this has changed over time. Is this a war over oil? And, is the method we are using the correct. Submitted by gary siu from honolulu, hawaii

A5: There are many theories, of course. Many believe it had to do with oil. Personally I think it was a combination of hubris and then appalling lack of planning, coordination and inability to accept that it was a mistake. Answered 04/16/08 11:53:00 by Linda Bilmes

Q6: If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars continue for another five or even ten years, and if the number of our service members deployed to the two war zones increases from 1.7 million to as high as 2.5 million, what do you estimate the the number of new veteran patients treated at VA will be? What about the number of new veteran disability claims filed against VA? And what about the costs to taxpayers for VA disability claims and VA healthcare? And, finally, why doesn’t the press report the existing 75,000 battlefield casualties and the 300,000 VA patients already caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Thank you. Submitted by Paul Sullivan from Washington, DC

A6: In our book, we estimate 2 scenarios, one for 1.8 million servicemen and the other for 2.1 million — you can read the difference it makes in terms of claims and costs in chapter 3 of the book. I dont know why the media doesn’t report the true number of casualties. The veterans groups have sent letters to the media explaining this situation. Several people (including Senator John Edwards who just recently sent a letter to the New York Times about this issue) have spoken out about it. And some intelligent reporters have understood and reported the true numbers. But many still take the Pentagon’s numbers without questioning them. Answered 04/16/08 11:51:22 by Linda Bilmes

Q7: What was the cost of the Vietnam war in today’s dollars? Submitted by Arsalan Ziazie from Los Angles, CA

A7: The estimate from Amy Belasco of the Congressional Research Service, in her testimony to Congress, October 2007 was $670 billion. Answered 04/16/08 11:42:48 by Linda Bilmes

Q8: I am truly grateful to you both for this very impressive investigation and analysis. I am an actuary engaged in a first quick attempt to assess the overall reasonableness of your analysis, before I continue to broadcast to my family and friends that the war will cost them at least $10,000 – and maybe $20,000 – each. (I am also briefly reviewing the book as an elementary writing exercise for a college class.) Questions on the Inflation and Discount Rates: 1. I am confused about the assumption for the future inflation rate and its interaction with the discount rate in converting all future costs to 2007 dollars. Can you elaborate? 2. Presumably, past costs were accumulated to 2007 dollars at 1.5{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}? 3. If the government could pay for disabled veterans’ benefits by purchasing, at some point, single premium annuities with an implicit interest rate higher than 1.5{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}, would this not be the best rate to discount these costs at?  Submitted by mary from columbus, oh

A8: We assume a real discount rate of 1.5 per cent. That is equivalent to assuming a nominal discount rate of 4.5 per cent if future inflation is 3 per cent, if future inflation is 4 per cent, it is equivalent to 5.5 per cent. Past cots zere accumulated to 2007 dollars by first adjusting for inflation, and then accumulating at 1.5 per cent. if the government could purchase an annuity that adjusted payments for inflation, and carried an implicit interest rate on these real payments higher than 1.5 percent, that would be an appropriate rate to use. Let us know if you find such an annuity.  Answered 04/16/08 09:57:03 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q9: How much money could we have saved if we did not have “contractors” doing the jobs that used to be done by our military? (i.e. security, food & laundry services, construction, etc.) Submitted by dave from anaheim, ca

A9: It is hard to get a precise number. It appears that, at least in many case, using contractors at least doubles the cost. Part of the reason that it is difficult to get a precise number is explained in the book: the government appears to be financing both the insurance premia for death and disability and much of the benefits (as strange as that may seem.) There is no full accounting. The overall cost of using the contractors is, however, far greater. We have created competition for our military–contractors doing the same work as soldiers are paid far more. This is bad for morale, but it also means that when their service time is over, many leave to work for the better paying contractors. In response, the military is force to pay big re-enlistment bonuses. But the contractors have cost us in other ways: they focus on minimizing costs and maximizing profits, and those objectives are often not consistent with our broader strategic objectives, as we explain in our book. Answered 04/09/08 19:23:19 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q10: Before the war started, US polls 82{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of Americans against war, 78{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of British against war is this our democracy or does this constitute dictatorships. Submitted by arloughlin from glasgow

A10: We have a republican form of government, in which we delegate responsibility for most decisions to Congress and the President. If we don’t like the decisions they make–if they make decisions that are flawed, or decisions that go against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans–they will face the consequences in elections. But information is imperfect. Citizens are not fully informed of what has happened–especially when you have a President who has deliberately tried to keep key information from the American people. Special interests make large campaign contributions, and help shape public perceptions. As a result, our elected representatives are not as “accountable” as they should be. Answered 04/09/08 19:18:19 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q11: dear sirs,did u ever estimate the cost of continouus lies spoken by bush administration in the context of iraq war? Submitted by aqeel ahmad from pakistan

A11: One of the big costs of the “deceptions” (not sure what else to call them) of the Bush Administration is that it has lost its credibility. It said there were weapons of mass destruction, and there none. It was there as a connection between Iraq and 9/1l, and there wasn’t. It said the war would cost between $50 to $60 billion; now we are spending that amount up front every three to four months. It has hidden from the American people the total costs of the war, even the total number who have been injured. it has repeately told the American people that victory is just around the corner. We keep turning corners, trying new strategies, and victory–whatever that means–remains as elusive as ever, even as we have lowered our expectations. If Americans lack confidence in the most recent assertions, is it a surprise? Answered 04/09/08 19:14:12 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q12: The Iraq War has removed a significant amount of oil from the world market. How much has the absence of this oil contributed to the rise in prices? How great is the negative impact of the oil price increase on the American economy, especially now that we are in a recession. Submitted by John Reinke from Redmond, WA

A12: In response to several earlier questions, I explained how the war contributed to the rising oil prices. In our book, we attributed only $5 to $10 of the $75 to $85 rise in the price of oil to the war, but I actually think the war was responsible for a far larger part of the increase in the price of oil. As we explain in the book, the high oil prices have had a very, very negative effect ont he economy–the effects of which were covered up by the Fed. Money spent on Saudi Arabian or Kuwait oil (or oil pruchased from any other oil exporter) is money that is not available to be spent here at home. That means the economy is weaker than it otherwise would be. As I mentioned, the Fed covered up these effects through a flood of liquidity and lax regulations. It fueled a housing bubble and a consumption boom. But it can’t do it any more. So in the coming years, we’ll be feeling the bite of the high oil prices much more. Answered 04/09/08 19:10:30 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q13: The price of crude oil has increased dramatically since the Iraq invasion. How much of this price increase can be attributed to the Iraq operation and is it due primarily to speculation in commodities (“the terror premium”), demand for fuel by the US military, or inflationary effects of war spending? Submitted by Mitch Friend from Springfield, MO

A13: Before the war, the price of oil was around $25 a barrel. Now it is $100 to $110 a barrel. In our book, we attribute a mere $5 to $10 to the war. We believe that number is very conservative–and so our total number is very conservative. Futures markets predicted that the price would remain around $25 for at least the next decade. The realized that there would be increased demand from China and other emerging mrkets. But they expected supply to increase in tandem with demand–mainly increased supplies from the low cost providers, those in the middle east. The war changed that equation. Thus, the war can be given “credit” for most of the price increase. It set forth an adverse price dynamic. At the high prices, oil exporting countries didn’t need to sell as much oil to meet their budgetary needs. Indeed, with prices quadrupling, they face a big problem of knowing what to do with the money that is literally pouring in. To many, it seems the best strategy is to keep more of the oil below the ground. The US military does use up huge amounts of fuel–it is a big factor in the cost of the war. But from a global perspective, the demand is relatively small.  Answered 04/09/08 19:06:32 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q14: This success of this so-called “surge” is based basically on the fact that the U.S. is throwing money at anyone who will take it. Millions and millions of dollars…now that this policy is unraveling why do you think that the main stream media has totally ignored the real reasons for the administrations false claims that the “surge” has been a success? Submitted by William R. Waitkus from Phoenix,AZ

A14: I find it difficult to understand fully media coverage of the war. Even before the war, protests marches got little coverage. The New York Times coverage of scandals are well known. I think there is a certain fear of being labelel unpatriotic. Interestingly, when our earlier paper on the cost of the war came out in early 2006, it received far more extensive coverage in Europe than in the United States. Our new book has, from most quarters, received very good coverage–but there are some glaring omissions. While on the op-ed page, there has been extensive discussion of our book, reportedly, the New York Times Book Review has decided not to review the book! The surge is clearly a complicated story. We should put the claimed success in perspective: the level of violence is still high. Such levels of violence anywhere else in the world would be viewed with alarm. We have just reduced the level of violence to the intolerable level that it was earlier. No one is sure about why the violence has been reduced, and therefore whether the lower levels will be sustained. The increased troops probably played a role; so too may have decisions in Iran about the extent and kind of support they are providing a variety of groups in Iraq. This in turn may have played a role in the unilateral truce by Sadr. What we do know is that the strategy of “buying” militia to our side is a risky one. it is similar to the strategy that the British used in the south, in Basra. Events of the past couple of weeks have shown some of the problems with that strategy. Answered 04/09/08 19:01:02 by Joseph Stiglitz

 

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Authors of ‘Three Trillion Dollar War’ Answer Questions About Cost of Iraq Conflict

June 22: In Memory and Honor of Jeffrey Lucey

On this day, our son’s – Jeffrey – anniversary, we want to remember him; have his sufferring and death have meaning and to celebrate his life.
 
To remember Jeffrey – the l’il guy who would get so excited and be full of mischievious glee and laughter; the little boy who would make his mom smile with pride and joy; the little boy who would scamper up in to his Dad’s lap giggling; the pre-teen who would be playing baseball or making his three point shot on the basketball court or zapping Snow White and Cinderella at Disney World with his hand buzzer; the teenager who would stand with his friend during his friend’s 10 year old brother’s funeral or be up at the Quabbin with me as I taught him to drive with one hand as he sipped his Dunkin Donut coffee in his other hand; the older teen who after blowing off the first three years of high school finally settled down and completed his Senior year fine;the volunteer at Camp Sunshine during his junior year as he dressed up as a woodland creature and danced with this beautiful young girl afflicted with a life threatening illness – and who are now both dancing beyond the stars; the young man who would take risks and often learn the hard way – adding to our many white hairs;  the Holyoke Community College student who actually enjoyed the learning and the questioning; the would be reservist who enlisted in December of 1999 up in a hotel room believing that May, 2000 was so, so far away; the Parris Island boot camp graduate who was now an United States Marine Reservist; the marine reservist who on 9/11/01 stated he was ready to go to New York for rescue and recovery; the marine who was sent to Kuwait and then finally Iraq for the invasion; the marine who returned six months later physically safe and unscathed but at the same time mortally wounded by hidden wounds; a mortally wounded veteran on whom this government and VA healthcare system turned their backs on him; our son who suffered and died.
 
To have Jeffrey’s suffering and death have meaning – to make all mindful of the unseen and hidden costs of war; to have  those responsible be prepared to FULLY support the troops and their loved ones after they return as well as teach future governments never to go to war – be it by choice or necessity – without preparing the veterans’ healthcare system to immediately and fully address all veterans’ wounds physical and hidden; to have the healthcare system be the best that it can be and to give the best healthcare possible for all regardless where one may live; to make this nation through her government truly and in truth support her troops and veterans as they return immediately, effectively and completely; whose story of torment, his struggle to survive  and then his eventual death will touch others and be a beacon in their own lives to that which will help them – that through his own story, others may live.
 
To celebrate his life – though we will always mourn, grieve, cry and feel his loss as a huge gaping hole in our hearts and souls, we will always try to bring to life all his memories of joy, glee, laughter, love and his accomplishments. For as it has been said and sung – Despite the gaping holes and loss in our lives – as has happened in the lives of so many wonderful and beautiful souls and families of many nations – we would have never given up one second of Jeff’s 23 years – his short life – to escape the pain of his loss.
 
To all who have walked with us even if it has been but for a moment on this painful journey of the past four years, we want to express our most sincere and deepest gratitude – and that together with Jeff and all the fallen and their loved ones, we all can make a difference for the so many who will walk similiar paths in the future.

by Joyce and Kevin Lucey, Parents of Iraq War Veteran Jeffrey Lucy, who died on June 22, 2004.

Background news article from three years ago: “Something happened to Jeff” – Jeff Lucey returned from Iraq a changed man. Then he killed himself.

By Irene Sege, Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2005/03/01/jeff_lucey_returned_from_iraq_a_changed_man_then_he_killed_himself/

March 1, 2005, Belchertown, MA – Less than three weeks before he committed suicide, Jeffrey Lucey, lance corporal in the Marine Reserves, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, totaled his parents’ Nissan Altima.

He wasn’t drunk when he ran the car off the road and landed between two trees, which was surprising given how much he used alcohol to dull the torment roiling inside his head. But he’d taken the Klonopin prescribed to ease his anxiety.

So when Kevin and Joyce Lucey visit their only son’s grave, they drive his Hyundai, with the Marine Corps decal Jeff put on the back window and the Marine seal he affixed to the bumper and the ”Support Our Troops” magnet and Kerry-Edwards sticker they added after he died. They pass yellow ribbons still fluttering from trees in front of the house where they raised three children, and when they arrive at the Ludlow cemetery, an expanse of small, fluttering American flags tells them Jeff finds his final rest in the company of scores of other veterans.

Jeffrey Michael Lucey was 23 and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when he hanged himself with a garden hose in the cellar of his family’s home last June 22. His family shares his story in hope of helping those, among the hundreds of thousands who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, who will battle similar demons.

“He wasn’t an important person, but he was very important to us,” his mother says. ”What’s important is what happened to him when he came back.”

On the TV in the Lucey living room, beside a teddy bear Marine, is a photograph of Jeff as a Cub Scout, his face impish enough it’s possible to imagine the day, when he was about 13, that his father came home to find him tobogganing off the roof into deep snow. On the piano is a prom picture of him and Julie Proulx, his girlfriend since high school.

“He was your everyday kid,” says Kevin Lucey, a 54-year-old therapist for sex offenders. ”He wasn’t a saint. He snuck out of his window. He’d be meeting up with his friends, and we thought he was sleeping. He started calming down when he and Julie started going out.”

Jeff joined the Marine Reserves in 1999, in part to pay for schooling his parents were prepared to finance. ”He also wanted to prove something to himself,” Kevin says. ”He knew the Marines were the toughest branch.”

In May 2000, Jeff left his Western Massachusetts hometown for boot camp, then was assigned to the Sixth Motor Transport Battalion in New Haven. In January 2003, the unit was activated. Lucey arrived in Kuwait in February, in advance of a war he opposed. In a tiny notebook with a camouflage print cover, he kept a journal that ends as the invasion of Iraq begins.

“Emotions such as anger towards our anything but wise commander in chief for ripping us out of our daily lives and pasteing us into a waste depository named Kuwait,” he wrote on March 8, 2003, ”or pain and heartache from missing the loved ones we left behind and of course the depression that forms when these two emotions are mixed together. With the deep thought associated with depression blooms uncertainty. Uncertainty can drive any man crazy, the uncertainty about what’s going to change about your life upon your arrival home.”

The journal ends March 20, apparently in Iraq, with news of a scud missile landing nearby. ”The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone’s heart truly skipped a beat and the reality of where we are and what’s truly happening hit home,” he wrote. ”We now just had a gas alert and it is past midnight. We will not sleep. Nerves are on edge.”

In July 2003 — after serving in Iraq in a light transport company that his comrades say ferried such cargo as ammunition, food, and Iraqi prisoners of war — Lucey, tan, thinner, and smiling, arrived by bus at the Marine reservist center in New Haven.

“We felt so good,” his father says. “He survived.”

Although it’s unclear what proportion of Iraq veterans will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, the numbers will undoubtedly surge as more troops come home. A 2003 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine last summer found that about 15 percent of returning soldiers have PTSD, anxiety, or depression. Among Vietnam veterans, 25 to 30 percent developed PTSD. ”In the nature of the disease, onset is delayed,” says Dr. Thomas Burke, director of mental health policy for the Department of Defense. ”It remains to be seen whether early intervention and the treatments that are available today will catch some of it early and result in these vets having only 15 percent.”

The department counts 32 suicides among American forces while serving in Iraq and another 10 in Afghanistan. How many killed themselves after returning home is harder to pinpoint, but the Army and Marines report at least 29 have.

Beginning last March, as winter gave way to spring, Jeff seemed increasingly distressed. By mid-May, he was spiraling downward. He heard voices, hallucinated, rarely left his room, drank alone. He pushed his girlfriend away. Seeing these changes, his family hid dog leashes and removed combat knives from their home. They disabled Jeff’s car after he crashed theirs. They took him to the Northampton VA Medical Center and the Veterans Center in Springfield. They barely slept.

They had attributed earlier changes they’d noticed to the readjustment period the military told families to expect. ”Julie noticed a distance. Sometimes he would get lost in a daze,” Kevin says. ”He was drinking, but nothing to where it ended up being, and it wasn’t continual.”

Lance Corporal Pablo Chaverri, a childhood friend who enlisted with Jeff, rarely ran into him in Iraq but saw him again back home. ”He just seemed down,” Chaverri writes in an e-mail from Iraq, where he’s been redeployed. ”We ended up going to Maine for a weekend during October of 2003. I didn’t notice anything until we started driving back home. He was very quiet and didn’t say much. That was not like him. He was the type to talk and get into conversations. He seemed zoned out and just didn’t seem right. He was not the type of guy that would admit he is weak.”

On Christmas Eve, in a sign of the despair to come, Jeff begged off the family’s traditional visit to his grandparents. His sister Debra, 21, came back early. As they talked in the kitchen, Jeff threw two Iraqi dog tags he wore at her. ”He said, ‘Don’t you know your brother’s a murderer?’ ” Debra recalls. ”I didn’t know what to say. I said, ‘You’re my brother.’ “

The most chilling story Jeff told his family was of being ordered to shoot two Iraqi prisoners and then keeping their dog tags, a claim the Marines investigated and determined did not happen. A Marine buddy, Lance Corporal David Samen, remembers seeing Jeff find one dog tag in the sand. Jeff also talked of running from his truck and scooping up a dead child. Jeff was buried with the small, bloodied American flag he said the child clutched.

“Something happened to Jeff that had him totally fall apart and be destroyed. What it was I don’t know,” Kevin says. ”Whatever happened — whether it was a collection of things, whether he assumed collective guilt — there is no question his experiences there planted something within him that was almost like a cancer.”

The bed in Jeff’s room is neatly covered with a Marine blanket, unlike in his last weeks, when it stayed unmade. Otherwise, the room is much as he left it. Under the window are several pairs of military boots and folded uniforms. On the door is a poster of a Marine ready for battle. Empty bottles of beer and brandy rest on his bureau. His handprint smudges the window.

The house carries the sweet scent of lit aromatic candles, and a blaze crackles in the living room fireplace. Here, last spring, Jeff found his dad’s copy of ”Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” by Matthew Friedman. He turned to a list of symptoms — ”recurrent distressing dreams,” ”reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes,” ”estrangement from others,” ”difficulty falling or staying asleep,” ”outbursts of anger.” Repeatedly Jeff said, ”I have that.”

After he returned from Iraq, Jeff had resumed his studies at Holyoke Community College, where he befriended Shaun Lamory, a fellow Belchertown High graduate recently discharged from the Air Force. ”We shared the same sentiments about the war,” says Lamory, 22. ”We were both against it.” Jeff planned to transfer to the University of Massachusetts in the fall and talked, in the last months of his life, of switching his major from business to nursing. ”He told me he had been involved in taking lives long enough,” Lamory says. ”He wanted to do something that would make him sleep better at night.”

Jeff once asked Lamory to join him for a cigarette. ”When he was telling me that story about the dead child, he was drinking wine out of an empty Jack Daniel’s bottle,” Lamory says. ”He said he drinks in solitude in his room and stares at the flag and thinks of that child.”

Jeff had been deteriorating since March, when he complained of being easily startled. ”He said when somebody slammed a door in the hall he would drop his books and crouch down real quick,” says Joyce, who worked as a nurse. ”He was very embarrassed.” By April, he skipped classes. He didn’t take his final exams.

Yet Jeff resisted suggestions that he seek help. He feared the VA would tell the Marines his problems and worried he’d have trouble getting a job if he was labeled with post-traumatic stress disorder. His drinking worsened. ”We didn’t want to take away his ‘medicine’ until he got help,” Kevin says.

Finally, in May, Jeff started seeing a private therapist, who diagnosed him with PTSD.

Jeff frightened his family, telling Debra in May he’d chosen a rope and a tree — probably a favorite maple with a rope swing. ”I would never do it,” Debra says he reassured her, ”because it would hurt Mom and Dad.” Walking with his mother one sunny day, he handed her his headphones and asked her to listen. What Joyce heard alarmed her. ”I’m staring down the barrel of a 45, swimming through the ashes of another life,” went the lyrics to ”45″ by Shinedown.

“He said, ‘Don’t take it that way. I don’t think of it as looking down a .45. I look at it as a dark tunnel,’ ” Joyce says. ”When you think about it, it’s the same thing — no light.”

By late May, Jeff had so deteriorated that his family, assured his medical records would be private, took him to the Northampton VA Medical Center. He expressed enough suicidal tendencies — talking, according to progress notes his family shares, of overdosing or hanging himself — that he was admitted for three days. He refused to stay longer. ”He felt like he was a prisoner,” Kevin says.

Jeff was told, his family says, that the VA couldn’t treat the PTSD until he quit drinking, in contrast to what they have since learned from the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder website (www.ncptsd.org), which recommends treating PTSD and alcohol abuse simultaneously. VA officials won’t comment on Jeff’s case, but Dr. Gonzalo Vera, a psychiatrist at the Northampton hospital, says most medications used to treat PTSD don’t mix with alcohol. ”PTSD,” he says, ”is not something you can really treat with somebody who’s drinking, because it takes a lot of insight.”

On June 5, Jeff arrived drunk at his sister’s graduation from Holyoke Community College. With difficulty, his family persuaded him to return to the VA medical center. This time, however, Jeff voiced no suicidal thoughts. He was not admitted.

Jeff kept a flashlight by his bed because he imagined he heard the camel spiders he’d hated in Iraq. Once, after his parents disabled his car, he climbed out his window, dressed in fatigues, and persuaded neighbors to drive him to the liquor store. His father smashed the bottles of beer he bought there.

His relationship with his girlfriend became so difficult that they separated. ”I was really upset and frustrated,” Proulx tells PBS’s ”Frontline” in a documentary airing tonight. (She declined to be interviewed for this story.) ”We were kind of taking some space because it was, it was hard for me.”

On June 14, Jeff, sober and crying, sat on the living room floor. ”He said, ‘I don’t know why I’m feeling like this. I feel like I’m going crazy,’ ” Kevin recalls. ”We jumped on that. We said, ‘Do you want help?’ ” His mother immediately telephoned the VA and the Veterans Center and told them, ”My son is slowly dying.” Jeff called the Veterans Center himself and went to one appointment.

The night before he died, Jeff climbed into his father’s lap, and his father held him. ”I really felt awkward, but he was hurting so much,” Kevin says. ”I’m so glad I did, because the next time I held him I was getting the hose from around his neck.”

Kevin came home the next evening to find the TV on and the Iraqi dog tags on his son’s bed. The basement door was open. Kevin walked downstairs. He saw Jeff’s platoon picture on the floor and his battalion coin, and, finally, Jeff.

“He really looked peaceful. I put my knee underneath him. I was howling his name,” Kevin says. ”I got the hose off of him and I held him. I remembered the night before I’d held him. He was cold, and I started rubbing him. I folded up the rug for a pillow for him. I laid him down.”

At the Marine center overlooking New Haven Harbor, in a monthly drill much like the ones Jeff attended through last May, reservists check a row of trucks. ”You definitely come back different,” says Lance Corporal Robert Hoyt, a 21-year-old truck driver from Norwalk, Conn. ”When you come here everyone knows what you’ve been through.”

About half the unit is back in Iraq now. Some who returned with Jeff sought help themselves after his death.

“The drill month before he committed suicide I shared a tent with him. We would confide our problems. I knew he had a problem. He wouldn’t seek help,” says Samen, 23, a security guard from North Haven, Conn. ”He didn’t feel right around people. He just didn’t fit in. Everybody loved the guy. You won’t find a person here who has a bad thing to say about him.” In August 2003, Jeff had been a groomsman in Samen’s wedding.

“I really wish I took him somewhere to get help,” Samen says. ”I won’t let that happen again.”

Since Jeff’s death, Holyoke Community College has convened a meeting of other colleges to talk about veterans’ issues, and local therapists have started to meet about post-traumatic stress disorder. The Luceys donated a pair of Jeff’s boots and one of his uniforms to Eyes Wide Open, the American Friends Service Committee’s traveling exhibit displaying a pair of military boots for each American soldier killed in Iraq. Jeff’s, Debra says, are ”for the ones who come back with their souls dead.” On March 18, which would have been Jeff’s 24th birthday, his parents will arrive in North Carolina for a rally by the antiwar group Military Families Speak Out.

“We don’t want people to make the same mistakes we did,” Kevin says.

“We focused too much on the drinking and not what caused it. We weren’t aggressive enough,” Joyce says. ”You have this false feeling of hope when he’s having a good day.”

By Memorial Day, Jeff’s grave will have a tombstone bearing an epitaph from the Shinedown song he listened to again and again: ”What ever happened to the young man’s heart/ Swallowed by pain, as he slowly fell apart.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on June 22: In Memory and Honor of Jeffrey Lucey