Accountability Moment: Doctor Fired After Negligent Death of Wounded Soldier in Fort Knox Barracks

Dead soldier’s doctor is fired: Psychiatrist treated veteran at Fort Knox

January 18, 2008, Fort Knox, Kentucky – A psychiatrist who treated Sgt. Gerald Cassidy, the wounded Iraq veteran from Indiana found dead in his Fort Knox barracks, has been “relieved of his duties,” a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh said yesterday.

Bayh press secretary Jonathan Swain identified the psychiatrist as Dr. William Kearney.
 
The civilian doctor, contracted by the Army, is the fourth person to face job action in connection with the Sept. 21 death. Three soldiers in Cassidy’s chain of command have already lost their posts.

Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, has linked the Westfield man’s death to inadequate staffing and problems with care at the Fort Knox Warrior Transition Unit, which opened in June and is devoted to healing the wounds of war.

“The fact that (Kearney) has been relieved of his duties confirms the validity of the questions Sen. Bayh and the family have been asking,” Swain said.

Although the Army is still investigating the death and its cause, preliminary reports show that the brain-injured National Guardsman may have been unconscious for days and dead for hours before someone checked on him.

Cassidy left a wife, a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son.

“This was a beautiful young man who did nothing wrong,” said Cassidy’s mother, Kay McMullen of Carmel, Ind.

She declined to comment specifically on the psychiatrist, but said: “The Army killed him with incompetent care.”

Bayh is seeking clarification from the Army about whether Kearney’s departure is temporary or permanent, and Kearney could not be reached for comment.

Constance Shaffery, public affairs officer at Fort Knox, confirmed that the psychiatrist is no longer working at Ireland Army Community Hospital but would not comment further, saying it is a personnel matter.

She also confirmed that representatives of Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were on the base yesterday, although she said “it isn’t primarily about Sgt. Cassidy.”

“Staffers from the offices of Senators Lieberman and Boxer came to Fort Knox as one in a series of visits to Army installations to look at mental health care and Warrior Transition Units throughout the Army,” Shaffery said. “Our elected officials often send staffers to visit Fort Knox and other Army posts to learn more (about) the Army and our missions.”

Lieberman is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Boxer has been working with other senators to examine mental health care for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Natalie Ravitz, Boxer’s communications director, said the visit is part of a series of planned visits to bases nationwide, “but Sgt. Cassidy’s death did prompt our staff to move up their visit to Fort Knox.

“One of the issues Senators Boxer and Lieberman have been looking at closely is treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury and PTSD,” Ravitz said.

Cassidy, 32, suffered brain injuries in a roadside blast in Iraq and was assigned to one of 35 transition units that were created after The Washington Post revealed substandard outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Bayh said Cassidy received “substandard care” at Fort Knox and tried unsuccessfully for five months to get transferred to a specialized private facility in Indianapolis that could deal with his condition.

At the time of his death, only about half of the staff positions in the Warrior Transition Unit were filled. Army officials said all key positions were filled as of mid-December.

Bayh, who spoke about the death before the Senate Armed Services Committee in November, continues to explore what Cassidy’s case says for staffing and quality of care at Warrior Transition Units nationwide.

“We’re not ready to say it’s an isolated incident,” Swain said.

McMullen’s voice broke with emotion as she said she hopes Bayh’s efforts prevent other families from suffering like hers.

“I think things have gotten better” at Fort Knox, she said. “But I think they’ve got a long way to go.”

Reporter Laura Ungar can be reached at (502) 582-7190.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Accountability Moment: Doctor Fired After Negligent Death of Wounded Soldier in Fort Knox Barracks

Congressman Walz Returns From Overseas Trip Investigating Military Healthcare

January 16, 2008 – Congressman Tim Walz returned yesterday from a nine-day Congressional delegation trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Germany during which he investigated the continuum of military health care.  Walz, who served 24 years with the Army National Guard before being elected to Congress, was able to accompany wounded soldiers as they moved from the battlefield to field hospitals to major military medical facilities in Germany.

“The new Congress has a mandate to change and improve the way our government works,” said Walz.  “I went to the Middle East last week to find out how we can continue to improve the health care soldiers receive, from the time they’re injured on the battlefield until they conclude their recovery at a major military medical facility.  It is clear to me that we have great medical professionals and incredibly brave soldiers, but what we don’t have is a streamlined medical records system.  I am committed to changing this.”

On the fact-finding trip, Walz discovered that while the military is making progress in digitizing medical records, but the databases used to store the records are cumbersome and complex.  “I met a surgeon who had three computers open and was searching seven databases for one soldier’s medical records.  All of that soldier’s records should be in one place, in one electronic file with his name on it.  This is an area where the military needs to make progress and the Congress is going to insist that they make the changes necessary to improve medical care for our soldiers.”

“The military does an excellent job treating many of the battlefield wounds of today’s soldiers.  Because many battlefield wounds may require treatment for a long period, we have to make sure that soldiers’ medical records stay intact so they can receive the best treatment possible.  That’s why my trip focused on how to ensure their medical records follow these wounded warriors all the way through their treatment.”

“Digital medical records are important because they help soldiers and veterans document their war time experiences.  These new records are documenting bomb blasts and other incidents that don’t necessarily cause physical trauma to every soldier at the time.  Down the road, when soldiers develop PTSD and other mental conditions as a result of these incidents, they won’t be forced to unnecessary reconstruct for the Department of Veterans Affairs what they went through on the battlefield,” said Walz.  “

Walz also arrived in Afghanistan alongside one of the first Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles deployed to the area.  “MRAP vehicles are something this Congress put a rush on because they’re critical to military medical care.  These MRAP vehicles will be used as ambulances in combat zones to ensure our injured soldiers reach medical facilities safely.”

Walz traveled with two of his colleagues, including the Chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

The trip’s itinerary follows:

Participants:

Rep. Harry Mitchell
Rep. Tim Walz
Rep. Charles Dent
LTG Eric Schoomaker, Army Surgeon General

Sunday, 6 January 2008
Depart Washington DC

Monday, 7 January 2008
Travel day

Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Arrive Islamabad, Pakistan
Meeting with Lt. Gen. Khalid Ahmed Kidwai (R), Director General of Pakistan’s Strategic Plan Division (in charge of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, including security)
Lunch at US Embassy with Deputy Chief of Mission, Economics Officer, Political Officer, Military Liaison Officer, AID representatives
Meeting with Minister of Religious Affairs

Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Depart Islamabad, Pakistan
Traveled to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan
Briefing on current military, political, and economic situation in Afghanistan by MG David Rodriguez
Lunch with Minnesota soldiers
Medical training demonstration using training simulator; observed medevac training
Humvee rollover training
Meeting with Provincial Reconstruction Team
Participation in Fallen Comrade ceremony
Overnight at Bagram

Thursday, 10 January 2008
Bagram Airforce Base
Demonstration of MRAP ambulance
Tour of Bagram Airfield hospital & medical briefing
State Department briefing
Depart Bagram, Afghanistan
Arrive Islamabad, Pakistan

Friday, 11 January 2008
Depart Islamabad, Pakistan
Arrive Kuwait
Review of transportation operations and vehicles; system and vehicles used to transport supplies into Iraq explained by transport battalion soldiers and officers
Briefing on logistics operation based at Camp Arifjan
Briefing on electronic medical data flow by Medical CIO for the CENTCOM Command Surgeon

Saturday, 12 January 2008
Depart Kuwait
Arrive Baghdad International Airport (BIAP), Iraq
Briefing on and tour of detainee medical facility
Briefing by the Commander and staff of the Task Force 62d Medical Brigade
Briefing by Multi-National Force/Corps-Iraq Surgeon and staff
Flight via Blackhawk to Balad Air Force Theater Hospital and tour
Meeting with Combat Stress Team
Tour of Battalion Aid Station
Overnight in Baghdad due to inclement weather

Sunday, 13 January 2008
Travel on ground to Green Zone via Route Irish
Briefing by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker
Depart BIAP, Iraq
Arrive  Kuwait

Monday, 14 January 2008
Depart Kuwait
Arrive Frankfurt Germany
Tour of Ramstein Air Force Base
Briefing on and tour of Contingency Aeromedical Staging Facility (“CASF”) at Ramstein
Briefing by Commander and staff or Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
Tour of Warrior Transition Unit

Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Depart Frankfurt Germany 1514        
Arrive Washington DC

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Congressman Walz Returns From Overseas Trip Investigating Military Healthcare

White House Admits Losing Iraq War E-Mails

January 16, 2008 – Very, very late last night, just before midnight, the Bush administration submitted a filing in CREW v. Executive Office of the President, our lawsuit challenging the failure of the White House to preserve and restore millions of missing emails. We first documented the massive loss of White House e-mails in our April 2007 report, WITHOUT A TRACE [0]: The Missing White House Emails and the Violations of the Presidential Records Act.

The latest filing from the Bush administration raises some very troubling questions that the White House clearly does not want to answer. This is how CREW’s chief counsel, Anne Weismann, described the situation:

With this new filing, the White House has admitted that although it has long known about the missing emails, it did nothing to recover them, or discover how and why they went missing in the first place. The missing emails are important historical records that belong not to the Bush administration, but to the American people. As a result, the public deserves a full accounting and hopefully, now that the matter is before a federal court, we will get one.

The White House has now admitted that it does not have an effective system for storing and preserving emails. This is no mere technicality; it is this failure that led to the likely destruction of over 10 million email. What the White House has not explained is why it abandoned the electronic record-keeping system used by the prior administration — a system that properly preserved White House email — but did not replace it with another effective and appropriate system.

The White House has also admitted that the only safeguard it has to its patently inadequate method for preserving email (dumping them in files that are put on EOP servers) is back-up tape media. These back-up copies, however, are only a “snapshot” of what was on the server at the time of the back-up. In other words they are not comprehensive, as the White House concedes.

Even more troubling, the White House has now admitted that until October 2003, the White House recycled its back-up tapes, which contained the only copies of emails deleted prior to that date. What the White House has not explained is why it changed its policy of preserving all back-up tapes — instituted in March of 2000 when the Clinton administration discovered that its system did not fully preserve all email from the Office of the Vice President — at the same time it decided to dismantle the existing electronic record-keeping system, with no replacement at hand.

The deletion of millions of email beginning in March 2003 coupled with the White House’s destruction of back-up copies of those deleted email mean that there are no back-up copies of emails deleted during the period March 2003 through October 2003. The significance of this time-period cannot be overstated: the U.S. went to war with Iraq, top White House officials leaked the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson and the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into their actions.

The White House now claims there is a lack of documentation supporting both the fact that email are missing and the volume of missing email. Yet in January 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in a letter to Scooter Libby’s lawyers, stated unequivocally: “We have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.” Moreover, when the problem was uncovered the White House Office of Administration created abundant documentation that included multiple estimates of the volume of missing email, not a single chart that the White House now suggests is the only documentation. Could it be that having now destroyed the evidence documenting the missing email problem, the White House feels free to retreat from its acknowledgment to Mr. Fitzgerald that White House emails are missing?

Also missing from the White House’s latest explanation of the missing email is why, more than two years after it discovered the problem, the White House still cannot say what happened, why it happened and how many email were affected. And the White House has yet to offer an explanation for why it never acted to recover any of the missing emails, even when presented with a recovery plan by its own Office of Administration.

It is perfectly clear why the White House has used every strategic maneuver it can think of to avoid answering any questions about the missing email: its answers are likely to raise more questions than they answer. That, years after the problem was discovered, the White House is still questioning whether or not there is even a problem is deeply disturbing.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on White House Admits Losing Iraq War E-Mails

Jan. 17: Medically Unfit Soldiers at Fort Carson Ordered Back to Iraq War

Of the 1.6 million service members who have served in Iraq, 34 percent have served two [or more] tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said: “The military must follow existing law and examine our soldiers before they deploy to the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. And the military must stop sending soldiers with physical or psychological conditions that require medical treatment into the war zones because this endangers the soldier, the unit and the mission.”

January 17, 2008, Colorado Springs, Colorado — Fort Carson sent soldiers who were not medically fit to war zones last month to meet “deployable strength” goals, according to e-mails obtained by The Denver Post.

One e-mail, written Jan. 3 by the surgeon for Fort Carson’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team, says: “We have been having issues reaching deployable strength, and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who we would otherwise have left behind for continued treatment.”

Capt. Scot Tebo’s e-mail was, in part, a reference to Master Sgt. Denny Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran, who was sent overseas last month despite doctors’ orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury.

Nelson took the medical report to the Soldier Readiness Process, or SRP, site on Fort Carson, where health-care professionals recommended Nelson stay home.

The soldier, who has a Bronze Star and is a member of the Mountain Post’s Audie Murphy Chapter, was sent to Kuwait on Dec. 29.

Nelson says he was one of at least 52 soldiers deployed who should not have been, and a veterans group says the military is endangering soldiers to meet its goals.

But Fort Carson officials say they do not believe unfit soldiers have been sent to the Middle East and say there is no repercussion for not meeting goals. They say the battalion commander has the final decision as to who is deployed.

On Jan. 5, a physician in Kuwait sent a strongly worded e-mail to Tebo urging him to send Nelson back to the U.S.

“This soldier should NOT have even left CONUS (the United States). . . . In his current state, he is not full mission capable and in his current condition is a risk to further injury to himself, others and his unit,” said the physician, Maj. Thomas Schymanski.

Nelson, 38, had fractured his leg and destroyed the tendons that hold the bones in his feet together while jumping on his daughter’s trampoline.

He arrived back at Fort Carson on Sunday.

“I just want to make sure these soldiers get back safe. I got back, and the only reason I got back safe is because I’m an E-8 (master sergeant). If I was a private or a specialist, I guarantee you, I’d be in Iraq,” he said. “If nothing comes out of this other than those soldiers coming back home before one of them gets killed, then I can sleep at night. But God forbid if something happens, and I didn’t do anything . . . .”

Nelson went through Fort Carson’s Soldier Readiness Process, a clearinghouse where legal, medical and financial records are examined, and it was recommended that he stay home.

No number on “no go’s”

Fort Carson could not say Wednesday how many soldiers were considered

“no-go’s” by medical professionals at the SRP site but were ultimately sent overseas.

“The SRP, what they do is they screen soldiers for deployment, . . . and if a soldier is identified as a no-go in the SRP site, then the soldier is seen by a specialist,” said Maj. Harvinder Singh, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team’s rear detachment commander.

Nelson said he was not seen by a specialist or any medical professional after the SRP site identified him as a no-go.

Nelson was to serve as a liaison officer and assist soldiers in transitioning from Kuwait to Iraq.

Singh said he does not believe medically unfit soldiers have been deployed to Iraq. He said soldiers with medical issues are only sent to theater if there is a light-duty job for them and medical services are available in theater. He said 3,500 of the brigade’s 3,700 soldiers were deployed. The others probably stayed home because medical services could not be found for them in theater.

Goals for commanders

Dee McNutt, spokeswoman for Fort Carson, said she knew of no Army policy that defined “deployable strength.”

“Every commander has a goal, and you try to achieve that goal, . . . but there is no repercussion if you don’t hit that goal,” Singh said.

Col. James Terrio, deputy commander for clinical services at Evans Army Community Hospital, said, “The issue with who you take, it is the commander’s decision.” A commander, he said, is familiar with the level of danger and the needs of the unit. A job in Kuwait, for instance, would not require a soldier to wear Kevlar, and a job as a liaison officer would not require running or walking.

Of the 1.6 million service members who have served in Iraq, 34 percent have served two [or more] tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said: “The military must follow existing law and examine our soldiers before they deploy to the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. And the military must stop sending soldiers with physical or psychological conditions that require medical treatment into the war zones because this endangers the soldier, the unit and the mission.”

Nelson said units are being deployed so rapidly, with 15 months in theater and 12 months off, that “they’re having trouble getting them healthy.”

Nelson said that when he arrived at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, he was told he would be going to Iraq sooner than he thought.

“The agreement was that I was going to be in Kuwait for four or five months, do physical therapy, and then when I’m healthy, I go forward to Iraq,” Nelson said. “I’m not going to Iraq not being able to wear any of my gear, not carry a weapon. I become a liability to everybody around me because if they get mortared, they’re going to have to look out for me because obviously, I can’t run. I can’t look out for myself. Now I’ve got soldiers worrying about my welfare, instead of their own.”

Nelson said there were two soldiers deployed with a torn rotator cuff. Another soldier was sent overseas who had mental-health issues, and another suffered from nerve damage to his groin area and had been taking morphine for seven months. When that soldier went to a clinic in Iraq to ask for more pain medication, medical professionals said he could not have it and he was sent home, according to Nelson.

Instead of going to Iraq, he went to another Kuwait post, Camp Arifjan.

Nelson said he was told by superiors that he would be in charge of 52 soldiers who were receiving medical treatment.

“I expected to find a whole bunch of people, but when I got there, they were all gone. They were already all in Iraq,” Nelson said.

Those soldiers would have received medical treatment in Iraq, said Singh.

Fort Carson was at the heart of a congressional investigation last year after reports revealed soldiers were not receiving quality medical care after returning from Iraq. Some soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder said they were punished, rather than treated, or thrown out of the Army for “personality” problems.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Jan. 17: Medically Unfit Soldiers at Fort Carson Ordered Back to Iraq War

Civil Liberties Victory: Judge Orders CIA and DoD to Provide Torture Documents to Him

Federal Judge Orders CIA and Defense Department to Produce Documents for Court Review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, January 17, 2008, New York – A federal judge today ordered the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide him with documents related to the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York ordered the government to make the documents available to him so he can determine for himself whether they should be made public pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations.

“Given the evidence of widespread and systemic abuse of prisoners, it is entirely appropriate for the judge to view these documents for himself instead of taking the government’s word for why they should be kept secret,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU.  “The right of the American public to know whether its own government respects the laws against torture is central to democracy.  The Freedom of Information Act was designed to disclose precisely this kind of information and we are hopeful that the documents will be made public.”

The documents Judge Hellerstein will view include:

*DoD documents relating to the deaths of prisoners;
*DoD documents relating to allegations of prisoner abuse;
*DoD documents relating to interrogations that deviate from those permitted by the current Army Field Manual;
*A September 17, 2001 CIA Presidential Directive setting up secret CIA detention centers abroad;
*CIA documents gathered by the CIA’s Inspector General in the course of investigations into unlawful and improper conduct by CIA personnel; and
*CIA documents discussing the CIA’s secret detention and interrogation program referred to the CIA from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Judge Hellerstein is still considering the ACLU’s motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court for destroying thousands of hours of videotape depicting the abusive interrogations of two detainees in its custody. The ACLU charges that by destroying the tapes, the CIA violated a September 2004 court order requiring the CIA to produce or identify records that fell within the scope of its FOIA request. 
 
Kolbi-Molinas and Amrit Singh of the national ACLU and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons P.C. argued in front of Judge Hellerstein today.

Other attorneys in the case are Jameel Jaffer and Judy Rabinovitz of the national ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; Lawrence S. Lustberg of Gibbons P.C.; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Civil Liberties Victory: Judge Orders CIA and DoD to Provide Torture Documents to Him

Harsh Words From Congressman Hare on Iraq, Veteran Treatment

January 15, 2008 – Galesburg, Illinois – Reflecting on his first year in office, U.S. Rep. Phil Hare expressed frustration about the country’s direction.

Though he has often been a critic of President Bush and his allies, Hare, D-Rock Island, did not shy away from criticizing some of his fellow Democrats who have failed to take advantage of their majority in the House and Senate to affect real change.

“We’ve gone no place on the war,” he said Monday during a meeting with The Register-Mail editorial board. “I thought, with the change in members of the House and Senate, and with the American people really tiring of it, we might be able to see it move. But the president is pretty locked in.”

Hare said he was one of 90 Congressmen to send Bush a letter recently stating they would not support continued funding for the war without a date for the United States to begin the process of withdrawing troops. It would take at least 18 months to bring the troops home, Hare said, adding that while the president did not need to have a fully formed plan, a time frame was necessary.

However, it appears as though the House will support continued funding for the war when Bush asks for it during the next legislative session, which begins this week.

“It’s a disappointment to me. I think that sends a very poor message,” Hare said.

While the surge has worked to reduce the violence, Hare said a “diplomatic surge” was also needed to negotiate a division of oil resources with the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and make sure the Iraqi government and police force were ready to step up when U.S. forces leave. Even though that is not happening, Hare said America still must begin to bring the troops home.

“I do believe if the U.S. leaves there will be a spike in violence. But if we go by that logic, John McCain is right and we’ll be there 100 years, and I’m not prepared to do that,” Hare said, adding the war was bankrupting the nation.

In fact, he blamed the war in part for Congressman Ray LaHood’s decision to retire. He said LaHood and other moderate Republicans went to the White House to tell the president how people in their districts felt about the war, and the next day LaHood received an angry call from one of the president’s advisers.

“Last I heard, he wasn’t emperor of the United States,” Hare said.

Veterans deserve better

Hare’s frustration about Iraq extends to the way veterans are treated once they return home. On average, he said it takes the Veterans Affairs Department 177 days to process a disability claim after it has been filed. If the claim is denied, the appeals process could drag on for another 12 years and if the veteran dies several years into an appeal, his or her spouse has to start all over again.

Hare said the VA’s big response to these problems was to try to cut the wait time from 177 days to 142.

Hare also said there has been an increasing problem with disability claims being denied on the basis of pre-existing conditions not previously identified.

He told two stories about this problem. One was of a Marine who lost his hearing because of mortar fire. The government is fighting to get his disability claim back, with interest, because they said he had a personality disorder prior to being in the military.

A Chillicothe man is fighting to keep his re-enlistment bonus after being discharged because of the mental stresses of his job. He was charged with retrieving the body parts of soldiers killed by roadside bombs. He had been screened four times before taking the job and was deemed fit for duty. Hare told the man to have the bills sent to his office. Hare then forwards them to the VA office and tells them “exactly what they can do with it.”

“I’m more than angry about it,” he said. “To do that to people; talk about being un-American. That’s something that’s really unfair to people.”

Angry Americans

Hare said people “have every right to be mad” at their leaders, including some of Hare’s fellow Democrats. While he said the House has done everything it can to get legislation moving, he said many bills stall in the Senate because of Senate rules requiring 60 votes to even bring a measure to a vote. He said Democrats, who do hold a majority in the body, would not change the filibuster rules because they served them well when they were in the minority.

“Our job as Democrats is to carry the House and Senate, but our job is not to make it so we only need a small majority to stop (legislation) because we don’t like it,” he said.

Hare said too many of his colleagues are more worried about getting re-elected than doing what they think is right.

“I don’t blame people for being disenchanted,” he said. “Sometimes we try to tell them what they think they want. They think that a lot of people don’t care about what they care about.”

Hare added he was frustrated that some Democrats want to wait to advance important legislation on things such as health care and education until after the election in order to make sure the legislation lines up with the next president’s policies.

“Voters are way ahead of us on these issues,” he said. “People don’t understand filibusters and cloture. They want to get up and go to a job. They want to have a safe place to go and come home to. They want to have health care and, at the end of the day, they’d like to have a decent pension and live their lives with dignity. That’s not asking for too much from this government.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Harsh Words From Congressman Hare on Iraq, Veteran Treatment

In Wake of Afghanistan and Iraq, a New Generation of Homeless Veterans Emerges

January 15, 2008 – Leeds, Mass. – Peter Mohan traces the path from the Iraqi battlefield to this lifeless conference room, where he sits in a kilt and a Camp Kill Yourself T-shirt and calmly describes how he became a sad cliche: a homeless veteran.

There was a happy homecoming, but then an accident – car crash, broken collarbone. And then a move east, close to his wife’s new job but away from his best friends.

And then self-destruction: He would gun his motorcycle to 100 mph and try to stand on the seat. He would wait for his wife to leave the morning, draw the blinds and open up whatever bottle of booze was closest.

He would pull out his gun, a .45-caliber, semiautomatic pistol. He would lovingly clean it, or just look at it and put it away. Sometimes place it in his mouth.

“I don’t know what to do anymore,” his wife, Anna, told him one day. “You can’t be here anymore.”

Peter Mohan never did find a steady job after he left Iraq. He lost his wife – a judge granted their divorce this fall – and he lost his friends and he lost his home, and now he is here, in a shelter.

He is 28 years old. “People come back from war different,” he offers by way of a summary.

This is not a new story in America: A young veteran back from war whose struggle to rejoin society has failed, at least for the moment, fighting demons and left homeless.

But it is happening to a new generation. As the war in Afghanistan plods on in its seventh year, and the war in Iraq in its fifth, a new cadre of homeless veterans is taking shape.

And with it come the questions: How is it that a nation that became so familiar with the archetypal homeless, combat-addled Vietnam veteran is now watching as more homeless veterans turn up from new wars?

What lessons have we not learned? Who is failing these people? Or is homelessness an unavoidable byproduct of war, of young men and women who devote themselves to serving their country and then see things no man or woman should?

The 1,500

For as long as the United States has sent its young men – and later its young women – off to war, it has watched as a segment of them come home and lose the battle with their own memories, their own scars, and wind up without homes.

The Civil War produced thousands of wandering veterans. Frequently addicted to morphine, they were known as “tramps,” searching for jobs and, in many cases, literally still tending their wounds.

More than a decade after the end of World War I, the “Bonus Army” descended on Washington – demanding immediate payment on benefits that had been promised to them, but payable years later – and were routed by the U.S. military.

And, most publicly and perhaps most painfully, there was Vietnam: Tens of thousands of war-weary veterans, infamously rejected or forgotten by many of their own fellow citizens.

Now it is happening again, in small but growing numbers.

For now, about 1,500 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been identified by the Department of Veterans Affairs. About 400 of them have taken part in VA programs designed to target homelessness.

The 1,500 are a small, young segment of an estimated 336,000 veterans in the United States who were homeless at some point in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Still, advocates for homeless veterans use words like “surge” and “onslaught” and even “tsunami” to describe what could happen in the coming years, as both wars continue and thousands of veterans struggle with post-traumatic stress.

People who have studied postwar trauma say there is always a lengthy gap between coming home – the time of parades and backslaps and “The Boys Are Back in Town” on the local FM station – and the moments of utter darkness that leave some of them homeless.

In that time, usually a period of years, some veterans focus on the horrors they saw on the battlefield, or the friends they lost, or why on earth they themselves deserved to come home at all. They self-medicate, develop addictions, spiral down.

How – or perhaps the better question is why – is this happening again?

“I really wish I could answer that question,” says Anthony Belcher, an outreach supervisor at New Directions, which conducts monthly sweeps of Skid Row in Los Angeles, identifying homeless veterans and trying to help them get over addictions.

“It’s the same question I’ve been asking myself and everyone around me. I’m like, wait, wait, hold it, we did this before. I don’t know how our society can allow this to happen again.”

A history of violence

Mental illness, financial troubles and difficulty in finding affordable housing are generally accepted as the three primary causes of homelessness among veterans, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the first has raised particular concern.

Iraq veterans are less likely to have substance abuse problems but more likely to suffer mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress, according to the Veterans Administration. And that stress by itself can trigger substance abuse.

Some advocates say there are also some factors particular to the Iraq war, like multiple deployments and the proliferation of improvised explosive devices, that could be pulling an early trigger on stress disorders that can lead to homelessness.

While many Vietnam veterans began showing manifestations of stress disorders roughly 10 years after returning from the front, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have shown the signs much earlier.

That could also be because stress disorders are much better understood now than they were a generation ago, advocates say.

“There’s something about going back, and a third and a fourth time, that really aggravates that level of stress,” said Michael Blecker, executive director of Swords to Plowshares,” a San Francisco homeless-vet outreach program.

“And being in a situation where you have these IEDs, everywhere’s a combat zone. There’s no really safe zone there. I think that all is just a stew for post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Others point to something more difficult to define, something about American culture that – while celebrating and honoring troops in a very real way upon their homecoming – ultimately forgets them.

This is not necessarily due to deliberate negligence. Perhaps because of the lingering memory of Vietnam, when troops returned from an unpopular war to face open hostility, many Americans have taken care to express support for the troops even as they solidly disapprove of the war in Iraq.

But it remains easy for veterans home from Iraq for several years, and teetering on the edge of losing a job or home, to slip into the shadows. And as their troubles mount, they often feel increasingly alienated from friends and family members.

“War changes people,” says John Driscoll, vice president for operations and programs at the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. “Your trust in people is strained. You’ve been separated from loved ones and friends. The camaraderie between troops is very extreme, and now you feel vulnerable.”

The VA spends about $265 million annually on programs targeting homeless veterans. And as Iraq and Afghanistan veterans face problems, the VA will not simply “wait for 10 years until they show up,” Pete Dougherty, the VA’s director of homeless programs, said when the new figures were released.

“We’re out there now trying to get everybody we can to get those kinds of services today, so we avoid this kind of problem in the future,” he said.

Unloading the dead

These are all problems defined in broad strokes, but they cascade in very real and acute ways in the lives of individual veterans.

Take Mike Lally. He thinks back now to the long stretches in the stifling Iraq heat, nothing to do but play Spades and count flies, and about the day insurgents killed the friendly shop owner who sold his battalion Pringles and candy bars.

He thinks about crouching in the back of a Humvee watching bullets crash into fuel tanks during his first firefight, and about waiting back at base for the vodka his mother sent him, dyed blue and concealed in bottles of Scope mouthwash.

It was a little maddening, he supposes, every piece of it, but Lally is fairly sure that what finally cracked him was the bodies. Unloading the dead from ambulances and loading them onto helicopters. That was his job.

“I guess I loaded at least 20,” he says. “Always a couple at a time. And you knew who it was. You always knew who it was.”

It was in 2004, when he came back from his second tour in Iraq with the Marine Corps, that his own bumpy ride down began.

He would wake up at night, sweating and screaming, and during the days he imagined people in the shadows – a state the professionals call hypervigilence and Mike Lally calls “being on high alert, all the time.”

His father-in-law tossed him a job installing vinyl siding, but the stress overcame him, and Lally began to drink. A little rum in his morning coffee at first, and before he knew it he was drunk on the job, and then had no job at all.

And now Mike Lally, still only 26 years old, is here, booted out of his house by his wife, padding around in an old T-shirt and sweats at a Leeds shelter called Soldier On, trying to get sober and perhaps, on a day he can envision but not yet grasp, get his home and family and life back.

“I was trying to live every day in a fog,” he says, reflecting between spits of tobacco juice. “I’d think I was back in there, see people popping out of windows. Any loud noise would set me off. It still does.”

Soldier on

Soldier On is staffed entirely by homeless veterans. A handful who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, usually six or seven at a time, mix with dozens from Vietnam. Its president, Jack Downing, has spent nearly four decades working with addicts, the homeless and the mentally ill.

Next spring, he plans to open a limited-equity cooperative in the western Massachusetts city of Pittsfield. Formerly homeless veterans will live there, with half their rents going into individual deposit accounts.

Downing is convinced that ushering homeless veterans back into homeownership is the best way out of the pattern of homelessness that has repeated itself in an endless loop, war after war.

“It’s a disgrace,” Downing says. “You have served your country, you get damaged, and you come back and we don’t take care of you. And we make you prove that you need our services.”

“And how do you prove it?” he continues, voice rising in anger. “You prove it by regularly failing until you end up in a system where you’re identified as a person in crisis. That has shocked me.”

Even as the nation gains a much better understanding of the types of post-traumatic stress disorders suffered by so many thousands of veterans – even as it learns the lessons of Vietnam and tries to learn the lessons of Iraq – it is probably impossible to foretell a day when young American men and women come home from wars unscarred.

At least as long as there are wars.

But Driscoll, at least, sees an opportunity to do much better.

He notes that the VA now has more than 200 veteran adjustment centers to help ease the transition back into society, and the existence of more than 900 VA-connected community clinics nationwide.

“We’re hopeful that five years down the road, you’re not going to see the same problems you saw after the Vietnam War,” he says. “If we as a nation do the right thing by these guys.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on In Wake of Afghanistan and Iraq, a New Generation of Homeless Veterans Emerges

PTSD and Murder Among Newest Veterans

January 14, 2008 – This weekend, while the 24-hour primary coverage raged on, the New York Times published a very well researched and stunning report on the number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans involved in killings, here in America. They found at least 121 cases, now, where a veteran was charged with involvement in a homicide.
 
The trend of our newest veterans being involved in killings on the homefront can be largely attributed to four letters — PTSD. Our failure to properly screen for and treat this mental injury is the source of so many problems our newest veterans face — from drug and alcohol abuse, to homelessness, to joblessness, to spousal abuse, to suicide, and now, to murders.

We have got to get serious about this issue, and do three key things:

• First, we must make it a requirement for troops and veterans to get periodic mental evaluation — and we must appropriate the money to ensure there are enough qualified counselors to do so. If a veteran lives too far to get an evaluation from a VA center, we should allow them to see a board-certified mental health professional, and reimburse the cost. The military and VA must get serious about these screenings, the same as they have for HIV. Every member of the military must constantly be tested for these diseases, period. Mental health screenings should also become a part of the culture of the military. Period.

• Second, we must do away with all the red tape and hurdles a veteran must go through to “prove” they have PTSD, when they take it upon themselves to seek help. Far too many veterans are denied a “full PTSD” diagnosis because the cost of providing them with full disability is too much for the VA budget to handle. We need to scrap the entire process, and no longer put the burden on the veteran to ‘prove’ they have PTSD.

• Third, we must rigorously screen all returning troops for mental strain — not ask them to fill out a simple questionnaire.

Until we tackle this serious issue, and treat it like the serious injury it is, we will continue to see these disturbing trends — many of which also applied to the Vietnam veterans. Time is of the essence, now. The question is, will we leave a new generation of veterans behind?

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on PTSD and Murder Among Newest Veterans

Faith Talk on the Campaign Trail 2008

January 13, 2008 – It’s a presidential campaign like no other. The candidates have been falling all over each other in their rush to declare the depth and sincerity of their religious faith. The pundits have been just as eager to raise questions that seem obvious and important: Should we let religious beliefs influence the making of law and public policy? If so, in what way and to what extent? Those questions, however, assume that candidates bring the subject of faith into the political arena largely to justify — or turn up the heat under — their policy positions. In fact, faith talk often has little to do with candidates’ stands on the issues. There’s something else going on here.

Look at the TV ad that brought Mike Huckabee out of obscurity in Iowa, the one that identified him as a “Christian Leader” who proclaims: “Faith doesn’t just influence me. It really defines me.” That ad did indeed mention a couple of actual political issues — the usual suspects, abortion and gay marriage — but only in passing. Then Huckabee followed up with a red sweater-themed Christmas ad that actively encouraged voters to ignore the issues. We’re all tired of politics, the kindly pastor indicated. Let’s just drop all the policy stuff and talk about Christmas — and Christ.

Ads like his aren’t meant to argue policy. They aim to create an image — in this case, of a good Christian with a steady moral compass who sticks to his principles. At a deeper level, faith-talk ads work hard to turn the candidate — whatever candidate — into a bulwark of solidity, a symbol of certainty; their goal is to offer assurance that the basic rules for living remain fixed, objective truths, as true as religion.

In a time when the world seems like a shaky place — whether you have a child in Iraq, a mortgage you may not be able to meet, a pension threatening to head south, a job evaporating under you, a loved one battling drug or alcohol addiction, an ex who just came out as gay or born-again, or a president you just can’t trust — you may begin to wonder whether there is any moral order in the universe. Are the very foundations of society so shaky that they might not hold up for long? Words about faith — nearly any words — speak reassuringly to such fears, which haunt millions of Americans.

These fears and the religious responses to them have been a key to the political success of the religious right in recent decades. Randall Balmer, a leading scholar of evangelical Christianity, points out that it’s offered not so much “issues” to mobilize around as “an unambiguous morality in an age of moral and ethical uncertainty.”

Mitt Romney was courting the evangelical-swinging-toward-Huckabee vote when he, too, went out of his way to link religion with moral absolutes in his big Iowa speech on faith. Our “common creed of moral convictions… the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet” turned out, utterly unsurprisingly, to be none other than religious soil: “We believe that every single human being is a child of God… liberty is a gift of God.” No doubts allowed here.

American politicians have regularly wielded religious language and symbolism in their moments of need, and such faith talk has always helped provide a sense of moral certainty in a shape-shifting world. But in the better years of the previous century, candidates used religion mostly as an adjunct to the real meat of the political process, a tool to whip up support for policies.

How times have changed. Think of it, perhaps, as a way to measure the powerful sense of unsettledness that has taken a firm hold on American society. Candidates increasingly keep their talk about religion separate from specific campaign issues. They promote faith as something important and valuable in and of itself in the election process. They invariably avow the deep roots of their religious faith and link it not with issues, but with certitude itself.

Sometimes it seems that Democrats do this with even more grim regularity than Republicans. John Edwards, for example, reassured the nation that “the hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet.” In the same forum, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she “had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought. And that’s all one can expect or hope for.”

When religious language enters the political arena in this way, as an end in itself, it always sends the same symbolic message: Yes, Virginia (or Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina) there are absolute values, universal truths that can never change. You are not adrift in a sea of moral chaos. Elect me and you’re sure to have a fixed mooring to hold you and your community fast forever.

That message does its work in cultural depths that arguments about the separation of church and state can never touch. Even if the candidates themselves don’t always understand what their words are doing, this is the biggest, most overlooked piece in today’s faith and politics puzzle — and once you start looking for it, you find it nearly everywhere on the political landscape.

The Threat to Democracy

So, when it comes to religion and politics, here’s the most critical question: Should we turn the political arena into a stage to dramatize our quest for moral certainty? The simple answer is no — for lots of reasons.

For starters, it’s a direct threat to democracy. The essence of our system is that we, the people, get to choose our values. We don’t discover them inscribed in the cosmos. So everything must be open to question, to debate, and therefore to change. In a democracy, there should be no fixed truth except that everyone has the right to offer a new view — and to change his or her mind. It’s a process whose outcome should never be predictable, a process without end. A claim to absolute truth — any absolute truth — stops that process.

For those of us who see the political arena as the place where the whole community gathers to work for a better world, it’s even more important to insist that politics must be about large-scale change. The politics of moral absolutes sends just the opposite message: Don’t worry, whatever small changes are necessary, it’s only in order to resist the fundamental crumbling that frightens so many. Nothing really important can ever change.

Many liberals and progressives hear that profoundly conservative message even when it’s hidden beneath all the reasonable arguments about church and state. That’s one big reason they are often so quick to sound a shrill alarm at every sign of faith-based politics.

They also know how easy it is to go from “there is a fixed truth” to “I have that fixed truth.” And they’ve seen that the fixed truth in question is all too often about personal behaviors that ought to be matters of free choice in a democracy.

Which brings us to the next danger: Words alone are rarely enough to reassure the uncertain. In fact, the more people rely on faith talk to pursue certainty, the more they may actually reinforce both anxiety and uncertainty. It’s a small step indeed to move beyond the issue of individual self-control to controlling others through the passage of laws.

Campaigns to put the government’s hands on our bodies are not usually missionary efforts meant to make us accept someone else’s religion. They are much more often campaigns to stage symbolic dramas about self-control and moral reassurance.

Controlling the Passions

American culture has always put a spotlight on the question: Can you control your impulses and desires — especially sexual desires — enough to live up to the moral rules? As historian of religion John F. Wilson tells us, the quest for surety has typically focused on a “control of self” that “through discipline” finally becomes self-control. In the 2008 presidential campaign, this still remains true. Listen, for example, to Barack Obama: “My Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify… a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.”

Mitt Romney fit snugly into the same mold. He started his widely-heralded statement on religion by talking about a time when “our nation faced its greatest peril,” a threat to “the survival of a free land.” Was he talking about terrorism? No. He immediately went on to warn that the real danger comes from “human passions unbridled.” Only morality and religion can do the necessary bridling, he argued, quoting John Adams to make his case: “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people” — in other words, people who can control themselves. That’s why “freedom requires religion.”

All too often, though, the faith-talk view of freedom ends up taking away freedom. When Romney said he’d be “delighted” to sign “a federal ban on all abortions,” only a minority of Americans approved of that position (if we can believe the polls), but it was a sizeable minority. For them, fear of unbridled passion is stronger than any commitment to personal freedom.

In the end, it may be mostly their own passions that they fear. But since the effort to control oneself is frustrating, it can easily turn into a quest for “control over other selves,” to quote historian Wilson again, “with essentially bipolar frameworks for conceiving of the world: good versus bad, us versus them” — “them” being liberals, secular humanists, wild kids, or whatever label the moment calls for.

The upholders of virtue want to convince each other that their values are absolutely true. So they stick together and stand firm against those who walk in error. As Romney put it, “Any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me.”

That’s the main dynamic driving the movements to ban abortion and gay marriage. But they’re just the latest in a long line of such movements, including those aimed at prohibiting or restricting alcohol, drugs, gambling, birth control, crime, and other behaviors that are, in a given period, styled as immoral.

Since it’s always about getting “them” to control their passions, the target is usually personal behavior. But it doesn’t have to be. Just about any law or policy can become a symbol of eternal moral truth — even foreign policy, one area where liberals, embarked on their own faith-talk campaigns, are more likely to join conservatives.

The bipartisan war on terror has, for instance, been a symbolic drama of “us versus them,” acting out a tale of moral truth. Rudolph Giuliani made the connection clear shortly after the 9/11 attack when he went to the United Nations to whip up support for that “war.” “The era of moral relativism… must end,” he demanded. “Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion and debate.”

Nor does it have a place in the current campaign debate about foreign policy. Candidate Huckabee, for example, has no hesitation about linking war abroad to the state of morality here at home. He wants to continue fighting in Iraq, he says, because “our way of life, our economic and moral strength, our civilization is at stake… I am determined to look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it.” As his anti-gay marriage statement asks, “What’s the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East, if we can’t keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?”

On the liberal side, the theme is more muted but still there. Barack Obama, for instance, has affirmed that the U.S. must “lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.” Apparently that’s why we need to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Clinton calls for “a bipartisan consensus to ensure our interests, increase our security and advance our values,” acting out “our deeply-held desire to remake the world as it ought to be.” Apparently that’s why, in her words, “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran.”

When words and policies become symbols of moral absolutes, they are usually about preventing some “evil” deed or turning things back to the way they (supposedly) used to be. So they are likely to have a conservative impact, even when they come from liberals.

The Future of Faith Talk

In itself, faith in politics poses no great danger to democracy as long as the debates are really about policies — and religious values are translated into political values, articulated in ways that can be rationally debated by people who don’t share them. The challenge is not to get religion out of politics. It’s to get the quest for certitude out of politics.

The first step is to ask why that quest seems increasingly central to our politics today. It’s not simply because a right-wing cabal wants to impose its religion on us. The cabal exists, but it’s not powerful enough to shape the political scene on its own. That power lies with millions of voters across the political spectrum. Candidates talk about faith because they want to win votes.

Voters reward faith talk because they want candidates to offer them symbols of immutable moral order. The root of the problem lies in the underlying insecurities of voters, in a sense of powerlessness that makes change seem so frightening, and control — especially of others — so necessary.

The only way to alter that condition is to transform our society so that voters will feel empowered enough to take the risks, and tolerate the freedom that democracy requires. That would be genuine change. It’s a political problem with a political solution. Until that solution begins to emerge, there is no way to take the conservative symbolic message of faith talk out of American politics.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Faith Talk on the Campaign Trail 2008

Despite Gains, Future in Iraq, Afghanistan Remains ‘Uncertain’

January 14, 2008

Interviewee:  Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, Center for International and Strategic Studies

Interviewer:  Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor

Anthony H. Cordesman, a leading expert on military and security developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that despite some gains, the situation in both countries remains tenuous. He says the majority of statements from presidential candidates for both parties have been “essentially pointless posturing for the Republican or Democratic bases.” 

You’ve been watching and commenting on the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began. I was hoping to get your general outlook first on the situation in Iraq, and secondly in Afghanistan. We could start with Iraq. Do you think the surge is now working militarily to the point it can be counted as a success, or is the situation still up in the air?

The most important thing is not what I think, but what General [David H.] Petraeus and people there think. There has been a tendency to claim a level of success that it is quite clear the command is not claiming. There’s no question that we have seen a very significant cut in the number of attacks, major incidents, and casualties. Basically things are down to the level that they were in early 2006. But that obviously doesn’t mean that violence is over; it just means that you’re dealing with a relatively low level of conflict by comparison with the peaks in casualties and incidents in the spring and summer of 2007. There are also almost continuous warnings within the military planning groups and the intelligence community in Iraq about what’s really happening.

What are these about?

We have not resolved the problems between the Arabs, Kurds, and other minorities in the north. Ethnic cleansing continues. There is still a buildup of militias and forces on various sides. The kind of very low level of violence and extortion that takes place when you have these ethnic tensions has not diminished. It sits there and is not necessarily a time bomb, but unless it is resolved, one of the major sources of civil violence has not yet been addressed.

In the south essentially what you have are rival Shiite factions, with only limited ties to the central government Shiites. It’s been a struggle for power, which has not resulted in large-scale violence against civilians, although, for many Sunnis, Christians, and more secular Shiites, there has been violence. They have been driven out of the south. But what you see is a building of militias that seem to be getting ready for a possible power struggle between the Hakim [led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, chairman of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)] and Sadr [led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a popular Shiite cleric] factions.

What about the situation in Baghdad?

It’s an astounding achievement to see what U.S commanders have been able to achieve. It is also a city segmented now into security zones, which are Shiite, Sunni, and mixed. You’ve not been able to halt all elements of ethnic cleansing. You’ve not been able to create a climate for people to be able to return to their homes if they are of the wrong sectarian group. The stability of the north, such that it is, is dependent on how long and how well these tribal militias are integrated into the overall power structure. At present, the government has been extremely slow in coopting them. It is obviously afraid of them. It has not really moved forward at anything like the pace necessary to win their loyalty.

Describe whether al-Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda is not defeated; its basic supply routes and lines of communication are weaker, but they remain. It continues to fight in Diyala [province, in northeast Iraq], it continues to expand its influence in Nineveh province and operate in Salahuddin [province in the north]. What we have is really major progress over the course of the last year. But to describe this as stable or victory or not realize that it could explode in the north or explode in the south or explode in Anbar and possibly do so with little warning is simply dangerous.

You’re saying that General Petraeus is rather sober about this?

He is somebody who always has a very positive attitude but he has warned continuously about going from real progress to the assumption that it’s stable. He has said again and again you need to deal with the militia issue, you need to deal with the problem of political accommodation, and that there can’t be a military solution. This is certainly borne out when you talk to people in intelligence or in the military whether they are in Iraq or the Pentagon. The problem we have, I’m afraid, is the tendency to see Iraq in blacks and whites. It’s a much lighter shade of gray.

How does this translate into American politics right now?

It really doesn’t. You can occasionally find useful statements on the websites of candidates. You see that for Senator [Hillary] Clinton and Senator [John] McCain. The debates have never raised any substantive issues. Most of the talk is essentially pointless posturing for the Republican or Democratic bases. Most of the candidates have frankly been vacuous. Statements have been made about getting out of Iraq which are not practical or meaningful. You have that on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. You’ve had candidates seriously talk about Iraq as if it was the center of terrorist and al-Qaeda activity. What you’re watching is a contest as to who can get a D- or an F+.

But then whoever becomes the next president, that’s a year from now, will have some tough decisions, right?

It’s not a year from now because it takes months to get your team on board. So we’re really talking about a year and a half. It’s not by any means clear for Iraq and Afghanistan that what is today a lull can continue, that you can take these two wars off the political board or deal with them in the level of clichés. In the case of Afghanistan you can’t even define it in terms of clichés. You have very serious problems in Pakistan. You do not have the resources either in terms of aid, or troops, that you need in Afghanistan. The sheer mindlessness of the American political campaign can come back to haunt everyone if we have a serious set of military offenses and problems in Afghanistanin the spring. This can happen much quicker if the Pakistan election next month is either suspended or triggers a much more serious crisis and essentially leaves the Taliban and al-Qaeda without an active military challenge. It is perhaps understandable that the candidates are dodging these issues, but in some ways so is Congress and the administration. This can frankly blow up in our faces with relatively little warning at any time between the Pakistan election and our election.

Has the situation deteriorated in Afghanistan?

We have seen in Afghanistan more success for the Taliban in 2007 than we saw in 2006. If you look at intelligence maps of the area of Taliban influence in Afghanistan, it has increased by about four times in 2006. It increased arguably, according to UN maps, by somewhere between 50 [percent] and 70 percent in 2007. If you look at the area in Pakistan, the same types of intelligence assessments indicate that areas under Taliban and Islamist influence in the northwest and the south more than doubled. If you look at areas under al-Qaeda and Taliban influence, al-Qaeda’s influence is more indirect but certainly it is much stronger in Pakistan than it was a year ago.

The Taliban has its own organization in Pakistan. These are not things you can map in terms of combat. NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] has decisively defeated the Taliban in virtually ever tactical encounter it has had in the last year. But what you can see if you map something different, which is the area under the Taliban under political and economic influence when NATO is not actively present, these are the areas where the influence has increased.

Let’s assume the Pakistan elections go ahead and there will be a coalition government that more or less supports President Musharraf. That’s probably the best possibility from the U.S. perspective. Do you expect they can get their act together militarily or is the Pakistan army really not up to fighting insurgents?

It is very hard to tell because very often people are reporting that the Pakistan army is engaged and it is actually a mixture of the Frontier Corps [federal paramilitary force stationed in North West Frontier Province and Balochistan] and the police. So far the Pakistani army has scored victories on the periphery on the areas dominated by the Taliban, but the Swat Valley [in North West Frontier Province] is not typical of the problems it faces. It has not done well, according to U.S. observers, on counterinsurgency yet it also has not been heavily committed. There is a lot of Musharraf rhetoric about using the army, but when it comes down to systematic efforts to secure the areas they simply haven’t taken place. Most observers, including many Pakistanis, feel the army does need help in counterinsurgency training and counterinsurgency equipment. But many of the same people question whether the real issue is political guidance and motive rather than military competence. Probably the answer is both.

The majority of statements from presidential candidates for both parties have been “essentially pointless posturing for the Republican or Democratic bases.”

Virtually any army that has focused its history on dealing with one enemy, which in this case is India, or internal security operations where it faces no serious challenges, which is true in most of Pakistan outside the Pashtun areas, is not going to be well equipped and trained for counterinsurgency. There is also, as yet, no clear political strategy on the part of Musharraf as to how to deal with the area, how to win militarily, what level of forces to engage, what kind of government presence and services to leave behind. While “win, hold, and build” tends to be a simplistic solution, historically we know that even if you win, it almost never really matters unless you can hold and build, at least to the point of providing aid and government presence and services.

On the whole, there is a rather tenuous future in both places?

I don’t know if we can describe it as tenuous; that it remains very uncertain. When you talk to people who work this, one of the great problems they face is that it’s going to take years of patient effort. It isn’t something that you can win via political schedule. You can’t be decisive for President Bush in 2008. You can’t tell Congress that it will be all over in 2009 and 2010. Just within the last week, one of Iraq’s most senior security officials said basically the Iraqi army would really be ready, along with the police, to deal with the counterinsurgency threat in 2012, and that working with the United States it could be equipped to act independently to defend its borders against foreign threats by 2015.

When you go to Afghanistan, occasionally people start putting out charts which are not the charts that people want to see but that are the charts that really we need to see. You see dates like 2011 and 2012. That doesn’t mean we’re losing or that we’re not making progress. That doesn’t mean we’re not adapting; if you look at the aid planning in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is far better, far more sophisticated than it used to be. If you look at our military tactics in Iraq, they are far more developed. The scope is much more on the hold and build. If you look at what’s happening in Afghanistan you see a great deal of realism from senior U.S. and NATO commanders. They understand the current rules don’t allow you to use the forces you have and even if they did you haven’t enough forces.

They’ve requested what’s required. The requirement is relatively limited. It’s essentially something like three to four more battalions and to have the stand-aside countries that don’t fight—France, Germany, Italy and Spain—actually commit their troops. These types of problems have got to get resolved. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan we can’t simply sit on our hands and hope that things go well in 2008, or by the time it will take to get a new team in place in 2009.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Despite Gains, Future in Iraq, Afghanistan Remains ‘Uncertain’