Veterans for Common Sense

February 4, 2008, Amman, Jordan (AFP) – When Saad Tawfiq watched Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations on February 5 2003 he shed bitter tears as he realised he had risked his life and those of his loved ones for nothing.

As one of Saddam Hussein’s most gifted engineers, Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995 — and he had told his handlers in US intelligence just that.

And yet here was the then US secretary of state — Tawfiq’s television was able to received international news through a link pirated from Saddam’s spies next door — waving a vial of white powder and telling the UN Security Council a story about Iraqi germ labs.

“When I saw Colin Powell I started crying. Immediately. I knew I had tried and lost,” Tawfiq told AFP five years later in the Jordanian capital Amman.

Now in his fifties, a round-faced man with a small moustache and lively eyes behind delicate spectacles, Tawfiq described how the CIA set up an elaborate operation to recruit Iraqi weapons scientists and then ignored the results.

From the end of 2002 the US spy agency had sources inside Iraq’s weapons plants telling them clearly what the whole world now knows — that Saddam had ended efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Nevertheless in March 2003 the United States and Britain invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam of this non-existent arsenal and in the process triggered the effective collapse of the Iraqi state, plunging it into chaos and bringing thousands of deaths.

Saad Tawfiq’s role in this drama began in June 2002 with calls from his sister Sawsan, a doctor who lives with her husband Ali in Moreland Hills, a pleasant suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, in the mid-western United States.

“Our Abu Mahmuds are putting pressure on me,” she told him, using the nickname they shared for Saad’s secret police minder as a makeshift code for the US intelligent agent who had contacted her, “Chris.”

“Chris was very nice, very polite,” Sawsan, a small energetic woman, told AFP. Chris wanted Sawsan’s help to discover the status of Saddam’s weapons programme, and in particular his efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

She joined one of the most successful attempts by the CIA to penetrate Saddam’s Iraq, a programme dreamt up by agency veteran Charlie Allen to target Iraqi weapons technicians through their relatives.

The scientists were well known to the UN weapons inspectors who had been keeping tabs on Iraq’s arms plants since 1991, and the Americans were able to draw up a list of 30 who had relatives in the United States.

The American relatives were to be sent to Iraq and ask about weapons.

“I was nervous, and we even discussed with Ali what to do if something happened to me,” Sawsan said. “It was a very emotional visit back home, because I had not been there for years and I had not seen my brother for years.”

Sawsan was right to be nervous. Saddam’s notorious secret police dealt with spies mercilessly. She was taking a risk with her life and that of her brother, but was determined to help rid her original homeland of a tyrant.

The CIA provided her with a detailed questionnaire about Iraq’s weapons programmes. Fearing she would forget it, Sawsan disguised it in sketches and crosswords in a kind of homemade code.

Tawfiq picked his sister up from Baghdad airport on September 9, 2002. Her homecoming was emotional, but the pair had work to do. They met secretly at night in the family garden and took walks together in the city.

The weapons engineer was astonished by the CIA’s questions, which he thought showed the depths of the agency’s ignorance about events in his country.

“I went crazy. The questions were dumb. She was telling me: ‘They know you have a programme,’ and I was saying: ‘There is nothing. Tell them there is nothing, absolutely nothing. They have left us with nothing’,” Tawfiq said.

“She was taking notes. There were 20 major questions, and to all of them the answer was: ‘No, no, no…’ I kept swearing on the grave of my mother.”

According to Tawfiq, Saddam Hussein gave the order to dismantle Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes in 1995, after his brother-in-law and arms chief Hussein Kamel defected and briefed the UN inspectors.

“I was Saddam’s scientist,” Tawfiq declared, with an ironic smile. “In 1991 if you exposed something you were killed. In 1995 if you hid something you were killed!”

Sawsan dutifully gathered this information and returned to the United States to pass it on to her handlers. But the CIA was unimpressed.

“Saad told me there was nothing left,” she told AFP. “That everything had been either destroyed or dismantled by the UN and the regime has abandoned its nuclear programme. And he begged me to explain all that back in the States.

“I went back and I reported what he had told me in full detail. I even went personally to Washington. In the beginning they listened to me but then they told me that my brother was lying,” she said.

Of course Tawfiq and other colleagues approached by the CIA were telling the truth, as the United States would discover after it had launched a bloody war that has cost tens of thousands of lives.

Paul R. Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia at the time of the operation to question Tawfiq, said weapons scientists had not been ignored, but had been contradicted by other sources.

“To the extent that the debriefings did not have more of an effect in Washington, it probably was not because the effort came too late but instead because there were other indications that seemed to contradict what the individuals were saying, and that suggested Iraqi unconventional weapons programmes were continuing,” he told AFP.

But as Saddam’s scientist lamented five years later: “You don’t have to destroy a country for that.”

February 3, 2008 – It was, he admits, quite a shock. The sniper’s bullet ripped through his left cheek, gouging through both eye sockets before exiting below his right ear. Corporal Simon Brown remembers lying in a Basra backstreet trying to rearrange his face.

‘It had collapsed, the skin from my face was flopping down, blocking my airways. I could barely breathe,’ he says. Under relentless fire from insurgents, Brown wrapped a bandage around his broken features.

Three weeks later, the 29-year-old woke up in Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham. Today he lives alone in his grandmother’s old house in the West Yorkshire town of Morley. His health may never recover, his military career is over. Brown has yet to receive compensation for his injuries. But now it is time to move on. After 11 years in the military, he is about to begin the daunting journey back to civvy street.

‘The army made me who I am. It is difficult to leave because of so many friends, some of whom have been lost.’ Yet his injuries – sustained trying to rescue colleagues from a crippled armoured vehicle during intense fighting in December 2006 – leave him little choice. He plans to start a teaching course and considers himself fortunate; he has ambition.

But what of the rest who glimpsed the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan and then left? Some, unable to adjust from the rigid hierarchy of the military to the vagaries of civilian life, have killed themselves. Others are unable to rationalise being abandoned by the authorities and turn to alcohol and drugs. Some are on the streets, quite literally.

Last year, the Royal British Legion took 1,485 calls from homeless ex-service personnel desperate for help. By law, former forces personnel should be offered accommodation as a priority, yet councils fail to honour their obligations, largely because of long waiting lists. Others are denied a chance to own a home because the heightened risk of suicide among those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan means they can’t get life insurance to guarantee a mortgage.

The stories of Brown, Hayley Murdoch, Dave Hart and Andy Julien, told here for the first time, lend weight to the consensus that the military covenant – the guarantee of a duty of care between the government and the armed forces – has faltered. Collectively, they present a tale of broken marriages, thwarted careers, psychological breakdown and isolation. Next month marks the fifth anniversary of the opening salvos of an Iraqi conflict steeped in controversy and confusion. Now it is the war in Afghanistan that is muddied in a quagmire of uncertainty. The intractability of fighting in Helmand province promises British casualties for years to come.

The price paid by the British men and women who entered these baking battlefields can only in part be measured in statistics. At the time of writing, 261 British service personnel have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 4,000 have been injured and 52 have lost limbs, half of them in the past 18 months. Tellingly, in a society submerged in statistics the incidence of broken marriages, suicides, alcoholism, deep depression and homelessness among service veterans remains largely unquantified.

A year has passed since a veteran accosted Tony Blair and told the then Prime Minister how he found himself homeless and forced to pay for medical care after two years in Iraq. Little appears to have changed. What the British nation owes those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice remains a matter of fierce debate. Perhaps the most pressing question of all might well be: do we really care?

Only they know what it took to turn their lives around. Cavalryman Andy Julien had hit rock bottom. Severely wounded in a friendly fire incident during the invasion of Iraq, Julien was ‘downgraded’ and discharged from the army in 2004. He was never offered another military position, another chance to salvage his career. Four days after the world watched Baghdad shudder in March 2003 under George Bush’s promise to unleash a military might never before seen on the face of the planet, the 27-year-old was ordered to bring his Challenger II tank back from the front line when he was struck. The fact that he may never fully recover from his leg injuries and the lack of government support pushed him to the edge. ‘I had so much anger, it was very different being back on civvy street. No one understood.’ Two of his friends were killed in the incident but an inquest found nobody to blame. The public’s apathy for a largely unpopular war exacerbated his despair.

Hayley Murdoch can sympathise. Her back and hip were severely damaged after an accident in Iraq in 2005. Discharged from the RAF with no support, the 27-year-old recalls collapsing in the street after her legs gave way. ‘People were stepping over me because they thought I was drunk,’ she said.

Psychologists refer to a cycle of despair that characterises the struggle of many who leave the military. Employment proves elusive. Pressures build. Eventually they try to escape through drink and drugs. Often they leave home, some heading to London for a fresh start where they find themselves in limbo with nothing to their name. There are no flags, no bands, no glorious memories.

‘The army’s a bit like heroin – weaning yourself off can take time,’ said Michael, a paratrooper who has left the forces after a 22-year stint. ‘All of a sudden it’s “see you later”. That’s it. You get your £40,000 final resettlement package, but that soon goes on a new kitchen, patio, what have you. The army is an employer, then you’re on your own. If you don’t prepare, you’re in trouble.’

No help is given with finding a job, according to Michael. He found a different culture on civvy street, a more competitive environment with conflicting attitudes. The 41-year-old, who trained as a plumber in Manchester, said: ‘You are putting up radiators in a house and one’s not straight. The civvy attitude is it doesn’t matter, but it’s somebody’s home, for God’s sake.’

Murdoch believes the military is willing to abandon its own. ‘After the Second World War people with serious injuries were re-employed. Now they just discard them. If you cannot recover, it’s a case of “off you go, then”.’

Those who survived the Second World War benefited from a shared solidarity; an entire generation could empathise with their sacrifice. Now, away from the camaraderie of the barracks, the sense of alienation can be acute. Some face hostility upon their return to civilian life. Brown is flabbergasted that people blame soldiers for the politics that led to the two conflicts. ‘If it was up to us, we would invade the Caribbean,’ he says.

Both Murdoch and Julien were discharged when the extent of their injuries meant they could no longer do the jobs for which they were trained. ‘Everything is hunky-dory and then you feel like a liability,’ said Murdoch. Some fight to stay in. Lance-Corporal Craig Lundberg, 22, was blinded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in Iraq during 2006 and, although he appreciates there is slim demand for a blind sniper, appreciates the role of the army’s support network.

Still, no one knows how many of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequently left the armed forces have committed suicide. Details of their service career are not entered on death certificates. Neither does anyone know how many of the 10,000 reservists – proven to be more susceptible to mental-health problems than regulars – who have served in the conflicts have killed themselves. Researchers at Manchester University are currently trawling through death registers for the past five years. Their findings, to be published this spring, are expected to be shocking.

Frances Hoy, a spokeswoman for the Royal British Legion, said: ‘We get calls from anxious parents explaining that their children are on the edge. They go to see their GP who only prescribes anti-depressants.’

This week the Ministry of Defence will trumpet increases to its compensation scheme for the most seriously injured victims of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who have inspected the small-print are underwhelmed. Just 20 cases involving the thousands injured in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive higher payouts. Even then, the benefits can be meagre. One of the 20 requires lifelong care but can expect no more than an extra £12,000. ‘The changes go nowhere near far enough,’ said Hoy.

Julien has never received a penny in compensation. Murdoch is considering taking the MoD to court to secure a settlement. Brown still waits. Dave Hart, 31, who was one of the army’s first suicide car bomb victims in Afghanistan, had his application for compensation refused. The multiple injuries he sustained explain his exasperation at the government’s refusal to help.

‘There was massive blood loss, a fractured skull, blood on the brain, a perforated eardrum, shrapnel cuts all over. Battery acid was sprayed all over my body and caught fire. My left lung collapsed and my right lung filled with blood. My left arm was almost amputated and my hands were shattered. I could go on …’

Another two years of operations are scheduled and he will need lifelong care. Soldiers are encouraged to take out personal accident insurance. Such cover has cost Michael more than £2,500 over the past decade. ‘If you are a private soldier with two kids, earning £1,200 a month, then that’s a lot,’ he says. Julien’s cover fell short of the amount required for his treatment. ‘There’s all these clauses and they always try to get out of paying. I would give it all back to be how I was before the war,’ he said.

Evidence given to the yet unpublished parliamentary report into provision of medical welfare for soldiers portrays a climate of cost-cutting. Britain is the only major European country without a dedicated military hospital. By contrast, French troops have the best medical institutions at their disposal. They include the Hôpital d’instruction des Armées Val-de-Grâce in Paris, offering a service so outstanding it has become the premier port of call for every ailing French leader since Charles de Gaulle. Hart appreciates the value of such investment. His survival was dependent on the treatment he received from French and German surgeons after being flown from Afghanistan to Germany for treatment. ‘The NHS has been OK, but the German welfare is why I am still here. They even wanted to carry on treating me.’ He found himself dumped on a geriatrics ward in a British hospital. He arrived on a Friday and was not seen by a doctor until the following Monday. He felt forgotten. He then caught the hospital superbug MRSA.

Rifleman Jamie Cooper, wounded in Iraq at the age of 18, twice contracted MRSA in hospital. Cooper, who has lost the use of his right hand and one leg, is eligible for £57,000 compensation. Friends last week described the teenager’s angst at hearing that actress Leslie Ash, 47, was to get £5m for contracting a hospital-acquired infection after injuring herself during a love-making session with her husband. Brown, though, remains typically indefatigable. Another 24 months of surgery will be required to rebuild his face. His left eye is blinded. He has just 15 per cent vision in his right. ‘I could sit around moping, but I am looking forward,’ he says. He is looking for a girl – ‘as long as she’s not a gold-digger – and enjoys a drink. But never too many.’ Nearly a quarter of those deployed in conflict for longer than 13 months have ‘severe’ drink issues. Eighteen British service personnel a week are testing positive for drug use involving cannabis, ecstasy or cocaine. Typically, the deepest scars affecting those returning to civvy street are in the mind. Combat Stress, which helps veterans with mental-health problems, has seen a 27 per cent rise in referrals. Yet more than half of those with psychological problems do not receive a war pension and cannot qualify for funding to help with their treatment. The average time-lag for post-traumatic stress to surface is 13 years; only in 2020 will we know the true fallout of the current operations. As a raw recruit Brown, then aged 20, was traumatised by Kosovo. ‘You didn’t ask for help, people think you’re soft. Instead you go for a bath or a quick drink.’

Brown, Murdoch, Hart and Julien will continue to forge new lives. None, though, will forget their time in the military; their bodies and minds will always carry the scars. For the armed forces themselves, the future is equally fraught. Pressures on a dwindling army fighting two conflicts exerts predictable effects. A parliamentary committee revealed last week that soldiers are leaving because of exhaustion. Every year, the army suffers a ‘voluntary outflow’ of 5,800 trained men. Officials say the funding crisis is the worst since the end of the Cold War. The MoD, meanwhile, is bringing in new resettlement packages to ease the transition into civilian life. For many, such changes have come too late.

February 5, 2008 – After a year of news reports about a stubborn backlog of 400,000 disability benefits claims and combat veterans turned away from immediate mental health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs unveiled a proposed fiscal 2009 budget that would boost spending on programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 21 percent and cut the disability claims backlog by 24 percent.

Spending on benefits and programs for the estimated 333,000 VA beneficiaries who are veterans of the current wars would increase by $216 million, to a total of $1.27 billion, over the current year. The 2009 budget also would include $3.9 million for mental health care services, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal-year budget.

All told, VA is seeking $93.7 billion for fiscal 2009, with most of it going toward health care and disability compensation. Discretionary funding — mostly health care — would make up $47.2 billion of the budget, while $46.4 billion would go toward mandatory funding for compensation, education benefits, home loan guarantees, pensions and other benefits programs.

“If you look at health care, it’s more than double it was seven years ago,” said VA Secretary Dr. James Peake, praising the Bush Administration’s request for funding.

The request totals $3.4 billion more than this year’s budget, which was $6.6 billion more than in fiscal 2007 — after Congress added $3.7 billion to President Bush’s original request.

One of the biggest issues facing VA is overwhelmed case workers who can’t keep up with the thousands of new benefits claims that continue to pour in.

Rita Reese, principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said VA plans to increase the number of fulltime case workers from 14,857 to 15,570. She said the budget plan aims to reduce the disability claims backlog to 298,000 by the end of fiscal 2009, a drop of 24 percent.

She said the average length of time required to rule on an initial benefits claim will drop from the current 180 days to about 145 days, a 21 percent improvement over 2007.

One aspect of the VA budget proposal that is likely to draw controversy is a renewed call for an increase in pharmacy co-payments for veterans in the lowest priority patient groups, Priority 7 and 8 — a proposal that in the past has drawn criticism from veterans’ groups and rejection from Congress.

The co-pay would rise to $15 from the current $8 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, who are considered “middle class” but may have incomes as low as $28,000. Most have medical conditions that are not service-connected.

One of the largest funding boosts for any single program category in the 2009 budget plan would be for long-term noninstitutional care, mainly home care, which would rise to about $762 million, a 28 percent increase over this fiscal year.

The 2009 VA budget plan also envisions the completion of a pilot program being conducted in collaboration with the Defense Department of a new disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., area.

That initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability process of the two departments. The pilot program features one medical examination according to VA protocols and a single disability rating determined by VA.

February 4, 2008 – In March of this year, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) will convene the Winter Soldier hearings in Washington, DC. “Winter Soldiers,” according to Thomas Paine, are those who step up in behalf of their nation when things seem most bleak. With this in mind, IVAW members and others will courageously provide eyewitness accounts of their experiences of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though I do not speak for IVAW, it is their intent and hope, I suspect, that by telling the truth about these occupations, to provide, at the very least, the impetus for a long overdue national debate on the morality and legality of America’s alleged “War Against Terrorism.” Many who pride themselves as “patriots” will, I am sure, accuse these veterans and anyone else who actively condemns the war as immoral and advocates an immediate and total withdrawal, of being un-American, unpatriotic and even treasonous. Even among those who have become disenchanted with the lack of progress in Iraq and skeptical regarding its justifiability and necessity, there is an “intuition” that since we have committed our soldiers and treasure to the effort, patriotism requires that we support our troops, our president and ,ultimately, the war. At the very least, these “patriots” continue, if we truly love America, we should keep any misgivings to ourselves and just remain silent. Is it the case, therefore, that at least with regard to America’s war in Iraq that morality and love of country are in conflict? That patriotism demands immoral behavior, or morality demands behavior that is unpatriotic even treasonous? It is the intent of this essay first to establish moral clarity regarding the war in Iraq and then to argue that morality and patriotism, correctly understood, require members of the military and their civilian counterparts to become Winter Soldiers and step up to end this immoral and tragic war.

    Moral Foundations

    Civilized nations and individuals accept, at least theoretically, that human beings have inalienable human rights, among them the right to life and to live in a nation that enjoys political sovereignty and territorial integrity (sometimes referred to as national rights). Such rights provide a natural immunity from, among other things, being injured and killed unjustifiably and having one’s nation invaded and occupied without warrant. To kill an innocent person is murder, and “the (unprovoked and unjustified) invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack” is aggression. We believe as well that aggressed individuals and nations have a right of self- and national defense, i.e., to use violence, even deadly force/war, all things being equal, to assert these rights. Morally, we justify such a response with an understanding that the aggressors, by virtue of their violation of the rights of their victims, have forfeited their own (their immunity) and have become liable to be resisted – warred against – in justified self- and national defense.

    The Iraq War

    In the intervening years since the invasion of Iraq, it has become clear to all, with the possible exception of Fox Television Network viewers, that the attacks of September 11 were neither prosecuted nor supported by the people and/or the government of Iraq. While Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, at the time of the invasion, Iraq neither sought nor possessed weapons of mass destruction. Further, Iraq posed no real and immediate threat to the United States, Israel or any other Middle East nation. Nor were the Iraqis aggressors or terrorists. Nor did they support aggression or terrorism. Nor were they linked in any way to the aggression or to the terrorist attacks. Consequently, and this is crucial, the nation of Iraq and its citizens are innocent, having done nothing to warrant forfeiture of their natural immunity, i.e., their rights to life and to live in a nation that enjoys territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

    Consequently, regardless of whether the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was the result of an honest mistake or something more insidious, the preemptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the killing of its citizens and its continued occupation are morally unjustifiable – an act of aggression and murder.

    Clearly, President Bush and his cohorts – those who planned and initiated the invasion and misrepresented it as a just war against terrorism and to preserve freedom – must bear the preponderance of responsibility and, hence, culpability for the aggression. That having been said, however, the invading troops, despite their being mislead into believing their cause to be just, are agents of unwarranted, immoral and illegal violence – they violate the rights of the Iraqis. They are what I will term “unjustifiable combatants/innocent aggressors.” Consequently, the invading/occupying troops must suffer the sanction of forfeiture of their natural immunity and become liable to be justifiably resisted and warred against by the Iraqis in self- and national defense.

    The fact that the invaders and occupiers allege to target only Iraqi combatants, and discriminate and afford immunity to noncombatants (though many instances of collateral damage have been reported), is irrelevant both to a determination of whether the invasion is just and to judgments of the liability of the aggressors. The opposing combatants, despite being termed “insurgents” and “terrorists” by our political and military leaders, maintain their immunity and, this is crucial, their right to self- and national defense. Consequently, the Iraqi combatants and their allies do not forfeit the very rights they are justifiably and morally struggling to assert. They are justifiable combatants. It is not the case, therefore, because of a fierce “insurgent” resistance, that the aggressors can now claim their actions are morally justified by reasons of self-defense. All combatants are not moral equals.

    At this writing, many in our country are celebrating the “success” of the surge and of the “new” military strategy in Iraq. However, military success and improved strategy do not afford a moral and legal basis for continuing, even escalating, the occupation – the aggression against, and murder of, the Iraqi people. How could achieving “victory” in such a scenario, i.e., the triumph of the aggressors, the murderers, over their victims, be morally justified?

    The Moral Obligation NOT to Support the Troops Qua Warrior

    Consider next the effect that recognizing the invasion and occupation of Iraq as aggression and the American troops as aggressors have upon the moral duties of all American citizens. To do so, I will refer the reader to the brutal and heinous attacks of September 11. It is clear that those who carried out these attacks were acting immorally. This is so, despite they, and others of their ilk, having been influenced, programmed or deceived into truly believing their cause to be just, and their attack to be a legitimate act of war – Jihad – against a nation and people that have, and continue in their view, to exploit, oppress and kill their fellow Muslims.

    Further, these terrorists were willing to endure great personal sacrifice in behalf of others and possessed the state of mind and spirit that enabled them to face danger, fear and death with confidence, steadfastness, perseverance and resolve. Under very different conditions, perhaps we would regard such qualities as virtuous and worthy of admiration. However, theirs was an act of terrorism and, as such, unjust, immoral, unwarranted and a violation of the rights of those they attacked. Consequently, we do not characterize their behavior as courageous, noble and heroic. Nor do we find admirable their willingness to sacrifice themselves for others and for a cause in which they believed. Since aggression is the unjustifiable killing of innocent human beings (murder), I see no morally relevant difference between national aggression and terrorism prosecuted by sub-national groups such as Al-Qaeda. Consequently, the acts of the terrorists and those of the American aggressors and occupiers are similar enough morally to warrant comparison. Both the terrorists and the aggressors believed, erroneously, in the justice of their cause and in the culpability and liability of those they were targeting and killing. Both were well-intentioned – neither acting from greed or self-interest – and motivated by a sense of duty to members of their community.

    Most importantly, both the terrorists and the aggressors violated the rights/immunity of innocent human beings. By parity of reasoning, then, despite their intended altruism and their willingness to face danger, fear and death with confidence, steadfastness, perseverance and resolve, the efforts of the aggressors, like those of the terrorists, are neither noble nor glorious. Nor should Muslims and the American citizenry feel gratitude and appreciation for their misguided benefactors’ willingness to endure great personal sacrifice “in their behalf.” Finally, immoral acts are not heroic, and the terrorists and the aggressors are not heroes. Based upon these observations, we can draw conclusions about the moral duties of American citizens relative to the war and their troops.

    Given the nature and moral value of the invasion, the American citizenry (including members of the military) is morally obligated, first and foremost, not to participate in the aggression, that is, to avoid enlisting into the military or refusing to fight (what I term the moral duty of “non-participation”). Further, they are morally obligated not to support the troops in their aggression, that is, what I will term “qua warrior.” Neither should they praise their aggressive actions, nor admire their personal qualities, nor appreciate their efforts, nor celebrate their accomplishments (the duty of non-complicity). If anything, they are morally obligated to sympathize with, support and admire the efforts of the victims, the Iraqis, in their struggle against aggression, since morality demands that we respect the rights and dignity of all innocent human beings.

    The Moral Obligation to Support the Troops Qua Human Being

    As in any war, even a just war, there may be individual soldiers whose questionable motives and intentions affect the morality of their actions or the degree of their responsibility. For the most part, however, no one joins the military or fights in war (or even uses terrorism as a tactic) to commit murder. Further, I think it is fair to say that a goodly number of those who serve in the military – especially during a war – are either the conscripted and the coerced or the underprivileged and the destitute. Their motivation in serving is only to survive and return home or to improve their standard of living and receive job training or financial support for college. Even of those who willingly enlist and consider themselves professional soldiers, the vast majority, though sometimes misguided (as is the case in Iraq), sincerely believe they are doing moral things for a moral nation.

    Given the gravity of the endeavor in which they are to engage, however, we do expect soldiers, before participating in the fighting, and civilians, before accepting conscription or volunteering, to evaluate, morally and legally, the war in which they will engage. Further, it would be meritorious, perhaps even morally required, depending upon the severity of the sanctions, for soldiers and civilians to have the moral courage and fortitude to refuse to participate in or support wars that are immoral. Finding out the truth about war, however, is very difficult and seldom certain.

    To appreciate the ability of governments to deceive, convince and coerce citizens into supporting an immoral war, one need only consider recent history and the plethora of sincere and astute intellectuals, clergymen and women, scholars and politicians (some of whom are currently vying to become president) who were convinced that war with Iraq was warranted because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, were complicit in the attacks of 9/11, and posed a real and immediate threat to the survival of our nation and all we hold dear.

    It is not only a lack of information, however, that makes the decision not to support or to fight the war so problematic and tragic. The magnitude of the social pressures (real or perceived) brought to bear upon young adults is such that, for many, deciding not to serve while others “go in their place” may require even more courage and determination than facing injury and death on the battlefield.

    In regard to the preemptive invasion of Iraq, members of the military have been influenced, manipulated and coerced by the president into believing the threat from Iraq to be real and their cause to be just and necessary.

    Further, given the sophistication of the deception and the unavailability of accurate information, they were not derelict in their responsibility as soldiers to morally evaluate the case for war. There is a real sense, then, in which they are themselves victims, deceived into risking injury and death for a mistake or to forward their president’s illegal and immoral agenda. These morally relevant circumstances entail that the members of the military are not fully responsible for their aggression, hence their status as “innocent” aggressors. They are what I will term “diminished culpability combatants.”

    Let us be clear. Diminished culpability does not mean that the aggression is justified, or that the aggressors are morally blameless (non-culpable and non-liable). Nor does it mean that they are excused (absolved of all responsibility) for their aggression. Blame and latent responsibility of the troops for their aggression is indicated by their liability. That is, their aggression warrants their suffering the forfeiture of their immunity – they can justifiably be resisted, warred against, in self/national defense. What the recognition of diminished culpability does suggest is an understanding and appreciation of the persuasive and coercive power of governments and the socialization pressures in a political community.

    Perhaps most importantly for our purposes, it recognizes the moral relevance, first, of the adolescent/young adult soldier not being in a position to make an informed judgment about the war and, second, that the level of coercion that soldier experiences makes it difficult, if not impossible, to decide otherwise than to serve and to fight.

    Consequently, given these extenuating conditions, their moral and legal culpability may be ameliorated post bellum. Further, while citizens are morally obligated not to support the troops qua warrior, compassion and respect for persons does require a moral obligation to act in the interest of all those victimized by war – whether they be innocent Iraqis or American diminished culpability combatants. This duty to assist, or what I term “supporting the troops qua human being,” entails doing what is truly in the troops physical, psychological, emotional and moral interest. Most importantly, citizens must strive, through protest, dissent and condemnation of the immoral war, to influence policy and bring pressure to bear upon their leaders to end the aggression against – the occupation of – Iraq and the exploitation and victimization of their own troops.

    Further, they should discourage troop participation in the war by, first, exposing the war’s immorality and the deception of their leaders. Secondly, the troops should be reminded that, at least since Nuremberg, their moral and legal obligations as soldiers require neither blind obedience to orders nor unquestioning trust in the decisions of their leaders. Third, they must strive to create an environment in which adolescents/young adults feel empowered to act upon their moral convictions and refuse conscription, enlisting in the military and/or fighting. Fourth, moral refusers and deserters must be supported and provided protection either through selective conscientious objector laws, legal defense funds or, more drastically, by providing sanctuaries from military apprehension and prosecution.

    Finally, compassion and the principle of respect for persons requires that the American citizenry strive to ensure that the troops receive the necessary care and treatment for the physical, psychological, emotional and moral injuries that are the inevitable consequences of their experiences in war, especially an immoral war. Overall, therefore, citizens, military and non-military alike, are morally obligated to become Winter Soldiers.

    Patriotism and Love of Country

    I am certain that some who will listen to the testimony of the Winter Soldiers will be outraged regarding the insinuation that the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq go well beyond Abu Ghraib and Haditha. I am certain as well that some reading this essay will be outraged that I dare equate the war in Iraq to the attacks of 9/11, members of the American military to the Al-Qaeda terrorists, and that I advocate not supporting the troops qua warrior. I am also sure that this outrage will lead many readers to question the veterans’ and my patriotism and love of America, perhaps even to accuse us of moral treason. In response, I would remind these critics that their version of unquestioned “patriotism” and “love of America” entails an indifference to, and disregard for, the principles of morality and the tenets of International Law – the very characteristics of a rogue nation that we point to when proposing and justifying military action.

    Further, it ignores justice in favor of a might-over-right philosophy, betraying an arrogance that brings our nation neither honor nor prestige in the world, but rather hatred and righteous indignation. Most tragically, perhaps, it denigrates the very foundations and all we hold sacred as a nation – justice and fairness for all.

    Further, I would point out that morality is not a means of gaining strategic or tactical military advantage, to be abandoned or manipulated should its tenets prove inconvenient to furthering the national interest, or even unsupportive of the actions of those with whom we share allegiance. If morality is to have any meaning and if individuals and nations are to avoid hypocrisy, morality must be universally and fairly applied without prejudice, bias or consideration of national identity.

    To feel an impetus to support our country’s actions and an attachment and concern for fellow citizens serving in the military is understandable. Further, once the fighting has begun and our troops placed in harm’s way, it is also understandable that citizens may be motivated to ignore, overlook and/or rationalize the immorality of the war and of their soldiers’ actions. They may even hope for their troops’ speedy victory and triumphant return even at the expense of the deaths of their innocent victims. However, their support for aggression and murder and for the troops qua warrior, their hypocrisy and arrogance, and disregard for justice and morality, while perhaps understandable, is morally unjustifiable, un-American, unpatriotic and integral to the question they themselves pose so often but seldom answer: “Why do they hate us?”

    The true patriot, therefore, does not blindly follow and obey, but questions the actions of his leaders and, when necessary, brings attention to the defilement or abandonment of the values we hold dear. Consequently, in times such as these, morality and patriotism demand Winter Soldiers. That is, true patriots who, despite great personal sacrifice, struggle tirelessly and courageously, to restore America’s integrity and moral standing in the world, and hold accountable those political leaders who have violated the public trust by acting not in America’s interest, but in behalf of wealth, power and empire.

    Camillo “Mac” Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. His focus is in ethics, particularly as it applies to war and warriors. As a veteran recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and coordinated for five years, the Veterans Self-Help Initiative, a therapeutic community of veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is a long-time activist for peace and justice, a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and a founding member of the Long Island Chapter of Veterans for Peace. Articles by Dr. Bica have appeared in Cyrano’s Journal, The Humanist Magazine, Znet, Truthout.com, Common Dreams, AntiWar.com, Monthly Review Zine, Foreign Policy in Focus, OpEdNews.Com, and numerous philosophical journals.

When young American men and women sign up to serve in the U.S. military, our government makes them a basic promise: If they are wounded in the line of duty, they will get the care they need. Unfortunately, for tens of thousands of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s a promise that only exists on paper.

On Feb. 18, 2007, the headline “Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Army’s Top Medical Facility” was splashed across the front page of one of the nation’s top newspapers, the Washington Post. The article, which described unsafe conditions and substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, began with the story of Army Specialist Jeremy Duncan, who was airlifted out of Iraq in February 2006 with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, “nearly dead from blood loss.”

“Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan’s room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold,” the article read. “When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.”

The Washington Post’s coverage of the scandal at Walter Reed sparked outrage and finger-pointing around Washington’s official circles, but the controversy did not solve the problem of substandard care. Eight months later, in September, Sergeant GJ Cassidy died while receiving treatment for blast injuries at Fort Knox. A GAO report released at the time of his death showed half of the military’s Warrior Transition Units had “significant shortfalls” of doctors, nurses and other caregivers to treat wounded soldiers.

It’s not known how many other soldiers have died the way GJ Cassidy did—alone while allegedly seeking medical care from his government. But we do know that veterans of the Iraq war are taking their own lives as the Pentagon and the VA fail to provide adequate medical care.

A CBS News investigation in November found that 120 veterans kill themselves every week, adding up to over 6,000 per year. CBS asked all 50 states for their suicide data, based on death records for veterans and non-veterans, and found that veterans were twice as likely to commit suicide [as] those who had not gone to war. Among those taking their own lives was Sergeant Brian Jason Rand, who served two tours in Iraq. On February 20, 2007, the Clarksville, Tennessee, police department found his body lying face down under an entertainment pavilion on the banks of the Cumberland River, a shotgun lying beside it.

Then there are those who become homeless because of government inaction. On any given night, 200,000 veterans sleep homeless on the street. Increasingly those veterans are younger men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

People like Specialist James Eggemeyer, who ended up homeless just a few months after returning home from Iraq with a severe case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder triggered by loading the bodies of dead Iraqis into a Blackhawk helicopter. The VA took so long to process Eggemeyer’s disability claim that he had to live out of his truck while he waited. The average wait time for a veteran’s disability claim to be decided is now 183 days. More than 600,000 disabled vets are currently waiting.

Tens of thousands more veterans are also being denied medical care and disability benefits they were promised after serving abroad.

The numbers are staggering: 11,407 U.S. soldiers have been discharged for drug abuse after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 6,159 have been kicked out of the military for “discreditable incidents”; 6,436 have been discharged for “commission of a serious offense”; 2,246 have been discharged for “the good of the service”; and 3,365 have been discharged for “personality disorder,” according to Pentagon data I obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Among those dishonorably discharged after honorably serving in Iraq is Specialist Shaun Manuel, who returned from a tour in Iraq to find [his son] dead of a rare genetic disease called Muscular Spinal Atrophy. Manuel said the situation was made even more painful when his superiors ordered him to begin training for a second tour in Iraq.

“My son passed away,” he told me. “You gonna send an emotionally distressed soldier to Iraq—who knows what he’s going to do? I’m ready to just blow the whole world up because I didn’t see my son being born and then he just passed away on me with no warning.”

Manuel never filed paperwork to medically excuse him from deployment. Instead, he withdrew and buried himself in alcohol. He estimates he drank three fifths of liquor a day. At one point, his wife had to call the police during a domestic disturbance. So the military expelled him with dishonorable discharge and now bars him from getting health care and disability benefits.

Even those who haven’t seen combat can be in for a fight. Private Durrell Michael threw out his back loading generators on a US military base in South Korea. He could barely walk or stand upright, but the Army tried to deploy him to Iraq anyway. When he fought back, they gave him a dishonorable discharge. Now, he’s in another fight: with the VA for medical care.

Independent journalist Aaron Glantz is author of the book “How America Lost Iraq” (Tarcher/Penguin) and editor of the Web site www.warcomeshome.org, a project of KPFA Radio.

February 1, 2008 – More than two dozen U.S. soldiers and their interpreters were rushed to a hospital by helicopter this week from Diyala province’s “bread basket” after being exposed to chlorine gas while destroying an al Qaida explosives cache, The Washington Times reported Thursday.

Military sources told the Times that all but four of the 26 persons were quickly returned to duty. The four stayed at the U.S. military hospital at Balad, northeast of Baghdad, for additional observation.

“It was really … scary,” one soldier told the Times.

Lt. Col. Patrick Mackin, intelligence officer for the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, confirmed the incident. He told the paper it occurred Tuesday, about one mile north of Himbus.

The gas was in a metal cylinder, one of 19 found that usually hold propane but which al-Qaida packs with explosives for improvised explosive devices, the Times reported.

Mackin told the Times that photographs taken of the cylinders and other materials found at a previously bombed al-Qaida in Iraq camp, located in a palm grove, indicated that the devices had been buried there for months.

“I’d bet a paycheck that [the chlorine] had been there since summer,” he said. “I don’t think it indicates a renewed trend by [al-Qaida in Iraq] to use the stuff.”

Last summer, al-Qaida had added chlorine to some of its vehicle-born IEDs, the Times reported.

“I think it wasn’t as effective as they wanted,” Mackin told the paper.

February 3, 2008 – London – Hundreds of veterans, including many who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, are being denied vital help by the [British] government to cope with the psychological fallout of war.

Despite ministerial pledges to improve support for British soldiers suffering mental health problems, veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are still not receiving funding for specialist medical treatment.

Combat Stress, a charity that assists veterans with mental health issues, is dealing with a 27 per cent increase in GP referrals of veterans – 1,200 new cases a year. More than half of those reporting psychotic nightmares, depression and suicidal thoughts have not been granted a war pension and are, therefore, not eligible for specialist psychiatric help.

Robert Marsh, Combat Stress’s spokesman, said the Ministry of Defence was challenging hundreds of cases because many involved troops who are diagnosed with mental health problems years after experiencing war.

‘It can be difficult to convince [the MoD] because so much time has elapsed in many PTSD cases, but that is the nature of these illnesses,’ Marsh said. ‘We want to treat more unfunded veterans. The challenge is, who will pay for it?’

Although the charity is grateful for the government’s 45 per cent funding increase, the number of veterans requiring help has grown significantly – but to qualify for the £245-a-day treatment provided by Combat Stress psychiatrists, a veteran must have a war pension.

The MoD has introduced a national network of 15 military mental health departments in hospitals and claims that discharge from the army due to psychological illness is ‘low’. An MoD spokesman said: ‘We recognises mental illness, including PTSD, as a serious and disabling condition, but one that can be treated. It is our policy that mental health issues should be properly recognised and appropriately handled. If a link is proved, then they will receive a war pension.’

The debate comes as the University of Manchester undertakes a study into how many Iraq war and Afghanistan veterans have killed themselves. It expects to publish the results this spring. Official figures show that at least 23 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans had committed suicide from 2003 to the end of 2006. Numbers for reservists are not known. Two members of the Territorial Army who had fought in Iraq, Private Dave Forshaw and Private Peter Mahoney, are known to have killed themselves.

There are fears that the number of suicides could eclipse the 33 British troops killed in the Iraq war itself. Falklands veterans’ groups estimate that 300 men committed suicide due to the 1982 conflict compared with the 258 killed in action.

In the US, the suicide rate among soldiers has reached its highest level since records began almost 30 years ago. Last year, 121 active members of the army took their own lives, up 20 per cent on the previous year.

An MoD spokesman said: ‘Suicide is not endemic in the armed forces. There has been a clear downward trend over the past 20 years.’

Concern continues over the pressures upon the British armed forces of sustaining operations, particularly in Afghanistan. This week ministers will confirm that 16 Air Assault Brigade will be deployed once again to Helmand province later this year.

January 31, 2008 – About one in six combat troops returning from Iraq have suffered at least one concussion in the war, injuries that, while temporary, could heighten their risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, researchers are reporting.

The study, in The New England Journal of Medicine, is the military’s first large-scale effort to gauge the effect of mild head injuries — concussions, many of them from roadside blasts — that some experts worry may be causing a host of undiagnosed neurological deficiencies.

The new report found that soldiers who had concussions were more likely than those with other injuries to report a variety of physical and mental symptoms in their first months back home, including headaches, poor sleep and balance problems. But they were also at higher risk for the stress disorder, or PTSD, and that accounted for most of the difference in complaints, the researchers concluded. Symptoms of the disorder include irritability, sleep problems and flashbacks.

Experts cautioned that the study had not been designed to detect subtle changes in mental performance, like slips in concentration or short-term memory, that might have developed in the wake of a concussion and might be unrelated to stress reactions. Many returning veterans are still struggling with those problems, which can linger for months.

The findings are in line with previous research linking concussions to post-traumatic stress disorder that develops after frightening events outside a military context, like car accidents; concussions from athletic collisions rarely lead to the disorder.

“This study is a very good first step, and an important one, but like any first step it should lead us to ask further questions about these injuries,” said Brian Levine, a neuropsychologist at the Rotman Research Institute and the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study.

Now that the prevalence of combat concussions is better known, Dr. Levine said, the next step should be to assess troops’ cognitive functioning early on and track it over time, before and after combat.

In the study, military psychiatrists had 2,525 soldiers from two Army infantry brigades fill out questionnaires asking about missed workdays and dozens of kinds of physical and emotional difficulties, including symptoms of PTSD. The soldiers had been back home from Iraq for three to four months.

The questionnaires also asked about concussions and their severity. A concussion is an injury from a blow or shock to the head that causes temporary confusion or loss of consciousness, without any visible brain damage. The investigators found that 384 of the soldiers, or 15 percent, reported at least one concussion. One-third of that 15 percent had blacked out when injured.

The severity of the concussion was related to the risk of developing the stress disorder, the survey showed. Nearly 44 percent of the soldiers who had blacked out qualified for the diagnosis, about three times the rate found in soldiers with other injuries. Among soldiers who did not black out, the rate of PTSD was 27 percent, significantly higher than the 16 percent rate among veterans with other kinds of injuries.

“There’s a lot we don’t know about these injuries, but we do know that context is important,” said the lead author, Dr. Charles W. Hoge, director of the division of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. “Being in combat, you’re going to be in a physiologically heightened state already. Now imagine a blast that knocks you unconscious — an extremely close call on your own life, and maybe your buddy went down. So you’ve got the trauma, and maybe the effect of the concussion is to make it worse.”

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Richard A. Bryant, a psychologist at the University of New South Wales in Australia, emphasized that concussed troops “should not be led to believe that they have a brain injury that will result in permanent damage.”

On the contrary, Dr. Bryant and other experts say, the link to post-traumatic stress suggests that mild brain injuries have a significant psychological component, which can improve with treatment.

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the study, and the interest of doctors and military officials in brain trauma, were long overdue.

January 25, 2008 – Less than a month after President Bush signed legislation overhauling the Freedom of Information Act, the measure’s main Senate backers are accusing the White House of planning to scuttle a special FOIA office in violation of the law.

An aide to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Office of Management and Budget officials have told committee staff that they plan in the president’s fiscal 2009 budget to park within the Justice Department all the funding authorized by the new law for a Government Information Services Office within the National Archives and Records Administration.

The office would include an ombudsman to oversee FOIA disputes across government. It is intended to push agencies to comply with the law, address FOIA backlogs and speed up resolution of FOIA requests. The office has not received any appropriations and its budget has not been set.

But by shifting the funding to the Justice Department, OMB would effectively eliminate the office, because it appears no similar operation would be created there, Leahy’s aide said. Instead, the funds apparently would go to the department’s Information Policy Office, which now oversees government FOIA compliance.

The recently enacted FOIA bill, sponsored in the Senate by Leahy and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, deliberately located the new office outside of Justice.

National Archives officials are relatively independent of political pressure, the staffer explained, “but DOJ is different.” Government transparency advocates consider the department hostile to efforts to improve FOIA responsiveness, in part because it represents agencies sued by FOIA requesters.

In a floor speech Wednesday, Leahy called the White House’s prospective plans illegal. “Such a move is not only contrary to the express intent of the Congress, but it is also contrary to the very purpose of this legislation, to ensure the timely and fair resolution of Americans’ FOIA requests,” he said. Though creation of the office is one of a series of steps mandated by the legislation, Leahy indicated it is a key component of the bill.

Cornyn has taken the same position. “He does agree with Senator Leahy and would oppose that effort,” a Cornyn spokesman said.

An OMB spokesman said Thursday he could not comment on whether the administration has the authority to move the money to Justice, because doing so would require speculating about the budget before its Feb. 4 unveiling. “This will be answered when the budget is released,” he said.

Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, an umbrella group for organizations advocating increased federal transparency, said the White House may say shifting the money to Justice is just a preliminary step before the office in the National Archives is set up. But even initially “putting it in DOJ would essentially obviate what Leahy and Cornyn did with the legislation,” McDermott said.

January 2008

Crisis Ministries in Charleston, S.C., sheltered four homeless women veterans in 2006. In 2007, it had served 16 with two months left to go.

It’s one sign that the number of homeless female vets is increasing. Many fear their numbers will continue to grow because more women are serving in the military. There were 201,575 women in active duty in 2006, according to the Department of Defense. It is also expected that many will return home from the war in Iraq with the same problems their male peers have had to deal with over the years.

“We’re trying to get ahead of the curve and be prepared,” said Stacey Denaux, executive director of Crisis Ministries, which recently received a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) grant and per diem award that will allow the organization to dedicate eight beds to female veterans and enhance its services. The grant is expected to be worth a little more than $90,000.

Denaux doesn’t think she will have any trouble filling the beds at Crisis Ministries.

An estimated 8,000 female vets are homeless in the country. The female veteran population of 1.75 million constitutes about 7 percent of all veterans, and the VA estimates that the percentage will grow to about 10 percent by 2017.

The female veterans that Crisis Ministries has served have ranged in age from 28 to 61.

Including both men and women, approximately 195,827 veterans were homeless on any given night in 2006, an increase of almost 1 percent from 194,254 in 2005, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) in a newly released report, Vital Mission: Ending Homelessness Among Veterans. Many more, about 495,400, experience homeless over the course of a year. Veterans make up a disproportionate number of the homeless. In 2005, vets made up 11 percent of the adult population but 26 percent of the homeless, said NAEH.

In addition to the factors that can contribute to anyone being homeless, veterans face additional challenges, including prolonged separation from traditional support groups. The study also noted that homeless veterans have high rates of health-related problems and disabilities. Mental-health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, are prevalent as well.

Female vets, veterans with disabilities, and unmarried or separated veterans were more likely to experience a severe housing cost burden, according to the report.

A home for female vets

The Mary E. Walker House on the grounds of the Coatesville VA Medical Center in Coatesville, Pa., is always full, and there’s a waiting list. Thirty female veterans live at the development at a time, and residents can stay for up to two years.

Since opening in January 2005, the development has housed 98 women, said Marsha Four, program director. A veteran herself, Four was in the Army Nurse Corps in Vietnam. Of her recent residents, three served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is still too early to see the real numbers from those wars, but those veterans are out there and starting to come in, Four said. The largest percentage of Walker House residents have been women who served after Vietnam and before the Persian Gulf war.

When a comment is made that people don’t think of homeless women as being veterans, Four politely offers a correction. “People don’t think about women being veterans, period,” she said.

The VA is targeting funding to programs that serve women, said Pete Dougherty, director of VA homeless programs. The last round targeted about $1.5 million, estimated Dougherty, who was preparing for another round.

Named after a Civil War doctor who was the only woman to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Walker House is a program of the nonprofit Philadelphia Veterans Multi-Service and Education Center. The development’s staff includes a social worker, an education specialist, and a job developer. It has also been funded under the VA grant and per diem program, which funds transitional housing developments. The VA does not have a permanent housing program. A partnership with the VA provides two psychologists and a psychiatrist to help the women at Walker House.

One of the residents is 50-year-old Audrey, who served for 13 years in the Army. She first joined the service after high school in 1975 and then went back in 1998 as a member of the National Guard. One of her jobs was as a heavy-duty trailer driver. She has been living in the Walker House since August 2006, and works with babies at a nearby learning center.

“It is a very special place, but you must be willing to change for the better,” said Audrey, who asked that her last name not be used. She admits to having abused alcohol and drugs.

Audrey came to the Walker House from a shelter in Philadelphia, where she was homeless for a few months. “One day of being homeless is a long time for me,” she said.

Four has found that many homeless women veterans have experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, and other violence. “They come with a lot of pain,” she said.

Coming from the streets, they have had to do almost anything to try to keep themselves safe.

“We feel it is important to have them in a gender-specific program,” Four said. “There’s a better focus on themselves … Many have had extreme relationships with men in the past and are not comfortable in a mixed-gender environment.”

—————————————

Homeless Veterans

The National Alliance to End Homelessness has released a new report, Vital Mission: Ending Homelessness Among Veterans, which found that 333,627 veterans were homeless in 2006.

Other findings include:

Veterans made up 26 percent of the homeless population.
An estimated 44,000 to 64,000 veterans were chronically homeless in 2005.
Nearly a half-million veterans were severely rent burdened and were paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent.
Female vets are more likely to have a severe housing cost burden. Women make up about 7 percent of veterans, but 13.5 percent them have severe housing cost burdens. For more information, visit www.naeh.org.