Veterans for Common Sense

June 6, 2007 – ANCHORAGE, Alaska — About half of all National Guard equipment is being used in the Middle East, and the Guard’s senior uniformed officer said Tuesday that could hurt the organization’s overall readiness at home.

National Guard units have 53 percent of the equipment they need to handle state emergencies, said Lt. General H. Steven Blum. It falls to 49 percent once Guard equipment needed for war — such as weapons — is factored in, he said.

“Our problem right now is that our equipment is at an all-time low,” he said at a news conference after addressing 54 National Guard commanders from every state and territory attending the annual Adjutants General Association meeting here.

“We have the most skilled, trained and full forces we’ve ever had, but our equipment is not where it needs to be,” he said.

The lack of equipment was highlighted last month after a tornado leveled the town of Greensburg, Kan., leading Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to say the recovery process could take longer because so much of that state’s National Guard equipment had been sent for the war effort in Iraq.

Since then, other governors have also expressed doubts their state units would be able to adequately handle disasters because so many troops and equipment have been deployed. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also complained that his state’s National Guard equipment remained in Iraq after those troops returned home.

Blum said the equipment problem is the result of long-term strategy of assuming risk by underequipping — and underfunding — the Guard.

“Now that the Guard is no longer merely a strategic reserve but an operational force overseas and here at home, that strategy is being seriously re-examined,” he said. “I think at the highest levels of government, there is support for getting us this equipment.”

The equipment issue is the easiest problem to solve, Blum said. It is now just a matter of funding it.

He said Guard units nationwide need new trucks, Humvees and modern aircraft, not only to replace what has been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan but also to replace outdated equipment.

Current funding projections will get the National Guard 75 percent of what it needs by 2013, he said. Blum estimated it would take an additional $40 billion over the next five to six years to get the overall force to 100 percent.

Current plans call for the old equipment to be removed from service by 2009.

Blum also said Guard deployment numbers are back down to an acceptable level. The most deployed Guard force ever was Idaho, Blum said, which peaked several years ago with 82 percent of its force deployed. He said the numbers are now where they need to be and that he is not seeking a further reduction in the frequency with which Guard units are deployed.

Connecticut and Guam now have the highest percentage of deployed Guard troops, with 24 percent. New Mexico’s Guard has the least, with none currently deployed, according to Guard statistics. The national average for the percentage of deployed troops is 11 percent, according to Guard officials.

Blum, who was appointed by President Bush, serves as chief of the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. He advises Army and Air Force officials on issues dealing with the National Guard. Blum served as chief of staff of U.S. Northern Command before his current role.

June 6, 2007 – House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner (D-Calif.) and the senior Republican on the panel, Rep. Steve Buyer (Ind.), despise each other. Their relationship is so frayed that lawmakers and veterans’ interest groups say it could interfere with the committee’s work.

Lawmakers from both parties have said they find it difficult to attend committee meetings and hearings because Filner and Buyer’s interactions are so tense. It has even made it difficult for some Democratic lawmakers, who might agree with Buyer, to listen to his ideas.

“I’ve never seen anything like it in my professional life. It’s just fierce,” one Democratic lawmaker said. “It’s interfered with the agenda and dampens the spirit of those in the room.”

“The relationship between the two is very strained, and that comes out during the meetings and hearings,” the legislative director of Disabled Veterans of America, Joe Violante, said.

The tension between the two men has built over the years, starting when they both began serving on the Veterans Affairs panel upon arriving in Congress in 1992. The relationship became irreparably damaged after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1995. The committee became much more partisan and Buyer and Filner led the charge for their parties’ agendas, according to veterans’ advocates.   

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman from 2001 to 2004, was able to reduce the level of partisan strife. But after GOP leaders sacked Smith for defying GOP spending limits and elevated Buyer to chairman, the partisanship resumed.

Filner has a reputation for outbursts. Last year, he cursed at a Department of Veterans Affairs spokesman during a news conference on a stolen VA laptop that contained data on millions of veterans. Filner had to fight for the chairmanship; the previous chairman, former Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.), backed Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine). Filner reassured the House Democratic Caucus that he would do more leading and less Molotov cocktail-throwing; he won a 112-69 vote to become the chairman.

By many accounts, Filner has lived up to his word.

“Filner has stuck to what he’s said,” the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Dennis Cullinan, said. “There have been any number of opportunities where he could have lost his temper.”

Buyer, who served as an Army lawyer during the Gulf War, also is known for being edgy and aggressive. Upon losing the gavel, he immediately criticized Filner’s leadership, including the speed with which he organized the committee.
Buyer declined to comment for this story.

With the Democrats back in control, Filner said Buyer is “in denial,” adding, “He’s not talked to me in a collegial way. He makes demands and goes to the press.”

The most recent eruption between the two men occurred two weeks ago over whether to rename a medical center in Albuquerque, N.M., after a Korean War hero. Raymond G. Murphy, who died in April, won the Medal of Honor in the Korean War and worked for the Veterans Affairs Department in Albuquerque for 23 years.

Congress can rename a VA facility if the honoree meets certain requirements. In this case, New Mexico’s congressional delegation and Gov. Bill Richardson (D) support the change.

Filner said Buyer has tried to circumvent the regular process to help Rep. Heather Wilson (N.M.), a vulnerable Republican who survived a stiff challenge from Democrats in last year’s midterm election.

“It’s a very cynical use of a war hero for political ends. They want to help Wilson,” Filner said.

On the House floor last month, Buyer challenged Filner to offer a bill to rename the VA facility on the suspension calendar, where it would need a two-thirds majority to pass. Filner ignored Buyer, who voiced his frustration.

“The American public gets to see the abuse that I have to deal with,” Buyer said on the House floor.

The House GOP Conference criticized Democrats in a press release entitled “House Dems Won’t Pass Bill Naming Veterans Hospital After Medal of Honor Recipient.”

Buyer has tried to stymie Filner’s use of procedural measures. Earlier this year, Buyer attempted to attach a veterans’ funding amendment to a bill that would affect the Small Business Administration. The Rules Committee told Buyer his amendment was not germane. He proceeded to try to rally the veterans’ service organizations to support a motion to recommit. In the end, Buyer never got his vote and the SBA bill passed.

“It gets testy and uncomfortable for everyone else,” the legislative director of the American Legion, Steve Robertson, said. “When the day is done, the negotiations take place behind closed doors. I see they’re reaching consensus.”

All of the veterans’ pressure groups praised Filner’s management, giving him credit for the level of oversight and number of bills passed. Still, all agreed it would be better for veterans if Filner and Buyer could get along. 

“I wish both would bury the hatchet,” Violante said, “and get on with taking care of veterans.”

June 4, 2007 – FORT STEWART, Ga. — Winn Army Community Hospital has a baby boom it cannot handle.

Mothers and children and stroller pack the pediatrics department, another hassle after long waits for hard-to-get appointments. The problems don’t stop there. From gynecology to internal medicine, this hospital on the grounds of Fort Stewart, the biggest Army base in the South, is overwhelmed. Too many patients are demanding too many services from a medical facility with too few doctors and too little space.

Military families complain they can’t get in to see a doctor. The hospital’s top commander points to a lack of money and staff to meet basic needs. And everyone involved agonizes about whether the problems can be fixed any time soon.

The Army’s acting surgeon general says the situation here illustrates the challenge the service faces nationwide in keeping health care promises that were made to soldiers when they enlisted. Months after the problems revealed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center caused a massive shake-up throughout the military’s system of care, the service is struggling to find enough doctors and nurses to care for troops and their families.

“If you’re sending someone off into harm’s way, if you’re asking them to do the nation’s business, you need to take care of them,” says Col. Scott Goodrich, Winn’s commander. “Whenever we can’t provide the care we need to a soldier, that’s very, very painful to me.”

The Army operates 36 medical facilities worldwide. For the past two years, more than half have failed to meet Pentagon standards for providing a doctor within seven days for routine medical care. And the Army has been forced to spend more money sending military families to doctors in nearby communities. Payments for outside referrals have jumped from $200 million in 2000 to nearly $1 billion last year, records show. Outpatient care accounts for 70{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of those costs. Go through doctortoyou.com.au for more information.

Here at Fort Stewart, home of the 3rd Infantry Division, Winn Community Hospital is among the worst in terms of access to routine medical care. Other problem facilities, according to Army statistics, include Walter Reed, the Army’s premier hospital; Fort Hood, Texas, the Army’s largest base; Fort Campbell, Ky., home of the 101st Airborne Division; Fort Jackson, S.C., a training facility; and Fort Riley, Kan., home of the 1st Infantry Division.

Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the Army’s acting surgeon general, says the Army’s entire health system has trouble providing care quickly enough. Pollock visited Fort Stewart in April and calls the situation at Winn “not acceptable.”

Goodrich and Pollock say the reasons for the problems include: the demand for doctors in Iraq; a shortage of Reserve caregivers, and a cumbersome government process for hiring civilian replacements.

Such challenges are not solved easily.

The Army has 4,170 doctors, about 180 shy of what it says it needs. Pollock says she hopes the Pentagon’s plans to expand the Army to 547,000 members — an increase of 65,000 — will provide the doctors that military families need. Last year, Congress approved paying bonuses up to $400,000 for medical officers with critical wartime specialties if they agree to remain on active duty for four years.

“It takes a while to recruit them, to develop them as professionals,” Pollock says. “(But) now that we are growing the Army I’m optimistic I’m going to be allowed to grow the Army medical department staff so that we can start to address some of these issues.”

Goodrich points to a more immediate problem: the conflicting demands for limited funds. “(The Pentagon) says you’re authorized this many people. It’s not enough,” Goodrich says of his staffing. “There’s only so many dollars. If you’ve got a war, you need equipment, you need soldiers, you need body armor. If I had more money, I’d buy more doctors.”

‘It was good, it really was’

Care at Winn was excellent a few years ago, families say. “It was good, it really was,” says Gloria Smith, 50, wife of retired Master Sgt. Anthony Smith. “Since the deployment started, everybody is overworked.”

Many families share that view:

•Sgt. Joseph Waterman returned from Iraq in October 2005 with ribs and vertebrae broken in a roadside explosion. The hospital did not have enough doctors or therapists to help him.

So each week his wife, Mary, drove him three hours to Augusta, Ga., for therapy at Eisenhower Army Medical Center. That required taking their three children, including two who had to miss school, and paying $69-a-night hotel bills the Army was slow to reimburse.

“It was breaking us,” says Mary Waterman, 31. “He was hurt (in Iraq), so I thought they would go out of their way to take care of him.”

Early last year, Joseph Waterman’s case manager at Winn allowed him to finish his therapy at a private facility in Savannah, Ga., a 45-minute drive from Fort Stewart.

•Warrant Officer Dan Howison and his wife, Kathryn, wanted to have a second child before he went back to war. Kathryn Howison, 29, says the family care doctors at Winn were slow to see her and slow to refer her to the hospital’s gynecology department.

“They’d say, ‘I’m sorry we don’t have any appointments this month, call back next month,’ ” she says. “And you’re like, ‘What? You know I have a limited time here where I can try to have this baby. You guys got to get me in there!’ “

After nearly a year of delays, Kathryn was sent to a private fertility clinic in Savannah, where hormonal treatments led to conception last year. The Howisons’ daughter, Piper, was born last week. Dan Howison will head to Iraq this summer.

•Amy Lambert, 40, a mother of three whose husband is being deployed to Iraq in two to three months, says Winn doesn’t have enough staff members to follow up with patients after office visits.

“You have to be the one who pesters them and calls them,” she says. “If you say, ‘Fine, I’m tired of dealing with this,’ that’s what they’re hoping for.”

Patient complaints rise

Linda King, a hospital patient representative since 1990, says there are more complaints than ever. Complaints filed with the hospital hit a record 616 in March, four times as many as March 2006. Three out of four were about access to care or service delays.

Soldiers and families from closed bases have moved to Fort Stewart, adding to the number of those eligible for care at Winn. The potential patient population has swollen 40{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} to 74,000 since the facility opened in 1983, officials say.

The hospital’s emergency room often has only one doctor on duty and strains to handle the demand, receiving 70 to 110 patients per day. Visits jumped to 36,000 last year, up from 30,000 in 2005.

Hospital data show most of those seeking care should not be there in the first place because they are not emergency cases. Seventy-five percent of ER visits in March were for issues such as flu symptoms, chronic pains or prescription fills — matters the hospital’s family doctors should handle, but are too busy or short-staffed to take on.

“They (patients) say, ‘I’ve been trying to get an appointment for two weeks and I’m tired of waiting, I just need to see somebody,’ ” says Maj. Chad Marley, chief of Winn’s emergency room. “Although it makes our job difficult at times, I take some pride in the fact that I’m the only place in the hospital that doesn’t say, ‘No.’ “

Carol Reynolds, 39, the wife of a deployed lieutenant colonel, says she had to change her doctor four times in four years. Goodrich says continuity of care at Stewart is “non-existent.”

And while out-patient services are strapped for space, in-patient rooms are empty because of the shortage of doctors and nurses. Winn is listed as a 112-bed facility, but it can staff only 91 in a major emergency and 40-45 beds routinely, Goodrich says.

Overall, the hospital’s annual budget has nearly doubled since 2001 to $72 million. That’s still nearly $10 million shy of expenses.

Reconfiguration and expansion of the hospital could help ease overcrowding and improve access to care, Goodrich says.

A 2006 Winn hospital Master Plan calls for seven new expansion projects to add 45,000 square feet and renovate another 74,500 square feet of space. Only one project has been approved by the Pentagon, however, and it is delayed until 2013, budget records show.

“Build me a bigger hospital, I’ll take care of more,” Goodrich says.

Hopes for improvement

The situation adds to the stress for family members of soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, says Col. Todd Buchs, the Fort Stewart base commander.

“If you look at the average life of a military spouse, it’s a stressful life,” Buchs says. “You’re raising your children with basically a single-parent family. Throw one more stressor on them — being frustrated with the hospital — it just makes your life more frustrating.”

One solution would be to send more patients to see doctors in nearby communities.

However, fewer private doctors want to accept military patients. Some doctors shun Tricare, the military insurance program, which pays the same modest rates as Medicare.

Other doctors only accept military patients if they can prescribe whatever medical treatments they deem necessary, which often conflicts with Army physicians who may prefer more limited procedures, Goodrich says.

Goodrich says he believes Winn is about to get better. With much of the 3rd Division gone to Iraq and some new doctors hired, Goodrich says he can improve access to care and take the pressure off the ER.

Buchs says he hopes the changes work. Families “don’t expect people to feel sorry for them,” he says. “All they want is to be treated with the appropriate care that we can give them because of the sacrifices they are making.”

KABUL, June 5 (Reuters) – While Iranian mortars and other weapons have been found on Afghan battlefields there is no evidence that Tehran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, the U.S. general who leads the NATO war effort in the country said on Tuesday.

General Dan McNeill, who took command of NATO forces in Afghanistan in February, also said in an interview with Reuters that some lower-level Taliban militants could be incorporated into Afghan politics, but he saw no hope for a peace pact with the leadership of the Afghan rebel forces.

McNeill, commander of the NATO’s 36,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said Iranian mortars were routinely found in Afghan weapons caches, but there was no evidence they had been transported as part of a Tehran-organised operation.

“There certainly are weapons or munitions of Iranian origin, but when you say weapons being provided by Iran that would suggest there is some more formal entity involved in getting those weapons here,” he said at ISAF’s heavily fortified main base in Kabul. “That’s not my view at all.”

Iranian mortars arrive in Afghanistan from many countries, he said.

“I just have no information to support that there’s anything formal in some arrangement out of Iran to provide weapons here.”

McNeill expressed concern that a new and more powerful type of roadside bomb called an explosively formed projectile (EFP) had recently been found in Afghanistan.

But he said he had seen no sign of portable air defense systems — anti-aircraft missiles — in the hands of the Taliban that would significantly alter NATO and U.S. air superiority.

CONVERTING THE TALIBAN

In answer to a question on whether a peace accord could be achieved with the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies, McNeill said he did not rule out the possibility some lower-level Taliban could join Afghan politics.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai had repeatedly extended olive branches and his government occasionally talks to the militants.

“I don’t rule out some former Taliban becoming part of a legitimate political process in Afghanistan. It’s already occurred. There are some in prominent government positions.”

“I think that the strategy or technique of not negotiating with terrorists, with extremists, is a good one,” McNeill said. “But I think it’s entirely possible, I’ve heard President Karzai say, that there are a number of lower-level Taliban who could come over and be part of a genuine political process.”

But of a possible peace accord with the leadership, he said: “I think some of those are incorrigible and I don’t see much of an option there.”

The long-expected Taliban spring offensive did not materialise, McNeill said, despite a rise in suicide attacks.

Instead, ISAF and U.S. coalition forces made progress of their own, particularly in eastern areas of Afghanistan and in a large-scale operation in Helmand province, in the area of a key hydro-electric project at the Kajaki dam.

“We think we have the upper hand right now,” he said.

Asked why NATO and the U.S.-led coalition, with more than 50,000 troops in Afghanistan, have not been able to crush the smaller and less sophisticated Taliban, McNeill reiterated statements by NATO’s secretary-general that more forces are needed to defeat such an insurgency.

“While we have a pretty good force here, it doesn’t fit with the numbers anyone has … prescribed in their doctrine (for an insurgency),” he said.

An insurgency is best defeated by indigenous security forces, he said.

The Afghan army being equipped and trained by Western militaries currently numbers about 21,000 troops in the field, McNeill said. Afghanistan’s army chief said on Monday he did not expect the force to reach its full 70,000 strength until next year and would not be fully functional until 2011.

June 5, 2007 – NEW YORK — They say America is the land of the second chance — the chance to make good on a promise, a project or a virtuous deed that might lead to redemption. But in the case of Henry Kissinger, the chances never seem to run out, no matter how much harm he does.

Twice in the last two months I’ve heard the world’s most famous (and venal) diplomat — now said by Bob Woodward to be advising President Bush on Iraq — make speeches that might be deemed comical if they weren’t so depressingly emblematic of this country’s endless tolerance for con men, courtiers and failures. Kissinger should have run out his string years ago, but there he was, nearly 84 and still vigorous, commanding the rapt attention of people who by now should know better.

How does he get away with it? The crimes committed by Kissinger in the service of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford are well known, exhaustively described by William Shawcross, Seymour Hersh and Christopher Hitchens, among others. I’ve always thought that Kissinger’s role in pointlessly prolonging the carnage of Vietnam while Nixon’s national security adviser was his greatest sin. But I don’t mean to minimize his other acts of diplomatic debauchery, both large (contributing to the destruction of Cambodia and the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, in Chile), and smaller (giving the green light to Indonesia’s immensely bloody invasion, and subsequent occupation, of East Timor).

I suspect that the secret to Kissinger’s enduring influence, against all moral suasion, is his sheer persistence. He is a tireless self-promoter, with more energy and vanity than men half his age. Last month, at the memorial service for Arthur Schlesinger Jr., this servant of Republican Party power was called upon to eulogize a man identified with the Democratic Party and the cause of liberalism. But before a packed audience of nearly 900 people that included Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Norman Mailer and Bill Clinton, Kissinger talked almost entirely about himself.

It seems that when Henry was a young professor at Harvard in the 1950s, he wrote Arthur a letter about nuclear- weapons policy in response to something Arthur had said. Next thing you know, Arthur had passed Henry’s great thoughts along to the editor of Foreign Affairs, resulting, Henry recalled, “in my first published piece on public policy.”

Imagine that. An Adlai Stevenson Democrat got Henry started in his villainous life in politics. Bravo for Arthur! Bravo for Henry! The “eulogy” continued in this narcissistic vein to the point where Kissinger might just as well have brought out his résumé and handed it to Clinton to pass on to future president Hillary. I’m not sure that Schlesinger would have wanted to be remembered as the man who launched Kissinger’s sordid career, but there was no stopping Henry’s ambition amid the historic grandeur of the Great Hall of Cooper Union, scene of one of Abraham Lincoln’s most celebrated speeches.

Two weeks later I got to observe Kissinger working another, more conservative room, this one filled with hundreds of admiring business people, members of the Economic Club of New York. In keeping with Kissinger’s courtier spirit, the lunch was held in the Trianon Room of the New York Hilton, and club president Barbara Franklin did her best to promote an atmosphere worthy of Versailles.

Kissinger, declared Franklin in her introduction, was “the most influential diplomat” of modern times, “his brilliance the stuff of legend.” But wait. Though “we still depend on him; we still need him,” the great man’s precious time had other claims upon it. Kissinger would have to cut short his answers during the question period after his speech, since his attendance was required that very evening at a White House state dinner honoring Queen Elizabeth II.

A collective frisson passed through the audience. But that wasn’t the only thing to get excited about. Something really, really important was in the offing. “In another break with precedent,” intoned Franklin, Kissinger’s talk would be off the record. A second frisson, and then the “one and only Henry Kissinger” approached the podium.

I furiously began scribbling in my notebook, to better violate the ground rules. Whispering “confidences” to docile reporters (“you’re the only one who can appreciate the sensitivity of this information”) to reward them for their servility is Kissinger’s stock in trade. In front of 500 or so people, the notion of an “off-the-record” speech was even more preposterous than the idea that Kissinger would ever tell a journalist anything important that he didn’t want known.

And, true to form, there was virtually nothing in the doctor’s speech that would have been worth quoting in a news story. Not always clearly understandable under the heavy German accent, Kissinger recounted a little bit of history studded with clichés: “In the 17th Century there emerged the idea of sovereign states” whose “frontiers were declared impermeable”; “Nationalist appeals to military service in Europe are in decline”; “Europe prefers the use of ‘soft’ power”; the United States is inclined toward the use of “ ‘hard’ power.”

Presumably to suggest an interest in stopping wars, Kissinger made vague reference to Emmanuel Kant’s essay “Perpetual Peace,” though he may have meant it ironically. In any event, he didn’t say anything of substance about the burning issues of the day, namely Iraq and Iran. Only truisms: The modern Middle East, apart from Iran, is made up of artificial states created by “Victorian powers” and “loyalties in the region were tribal and religious.” You don’t say.

Then this: “Vietnam had a definable opponent. . . . When I hear people say we should withdraw from Iraq or send more troops, people do not understand the turmoil we are facing. . . . We cannot let a region fall into the hands of a revolutionary group.” Nevertheless, “things are not hopeless.” For further information, you have to hire Kissinger Associates, and that costs a lot more than a ticket to an Economic Club luncheon.

Indeed, the only thing that Kissinger said that approached anything resembling candor was his statement that China could not maintain an annual growth rate of 11 percent “with an African standard of living in the interior of the country and a European standard on the coast.”

Kissinger’s tactics work wonders on the self-regarding rich. One of two after-lunch questioners, Richard Nixon’s son-in-law, lawyer Edward F. Cox, tried hard to outdo Franklin, calling Kissinger, “the pre-eminent strategic thinker of our time.” But a brilliant self-promoter doesn’t make a brilliant thinker or diplomat.

When, in answer to a question about the Suez crisis of 1956, Kissinger replied that “this was not [President Eisenhower’s] greatest moment,” I remembered just how shortsighted Kissinger can be. Suez was, in fact, one of Eisenhower’s four greatest moments as president, including the ending of the Korean War, the forced integration of Little Rock’s Central High School and his farewell address, in which he warned us about the “military-industrial complex.” Halting the British-French-Israeli seizure of the Suez Canal from Nasser’s Egypt was as principled as it was pragmatic: It told the world, not to mention millions of oppressed Muslims, that America would tolerate only so much re-colonization in the post-war era.

This was far too subtle and ethical for Kissinger, who, as a “private citizen,” in 1979, lobbied hard to admit the deposed shah of Iran to the United States for cancer treatment. Despite President Carter’s initial opposition and strong warnings from the American embassy in Tehran, Kissinger, David Rockefeller and their allies wore down the administration and got their way. The shah entered New York Hospital and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s outraged Revolutionary Guard, fearing a counterrevolutionary plot, seized the hostages at the U.S. embassy, permanently poisoning relations between Tehran and Washington. Now that we need Iran’s help in Iraq, Kissinger’s intervention on behalf of the shah looks worse every day.

But were the members of the Economic Club really as stupid as Kissinger thinks? After his stage-managed exit to attend to the Queen (and King George), I noticed a prominent real-estate man, a Democrat whom I know slightly, whispering earnestly to another guest: “Kissinger said nothing. That’s bad news because it means there’s no way out of Iraq.” I guess Bush must be really desperate. Or maybe he’s just as dumb as people say.

John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of Harper’s Magazine.

June 3, 2007 – Fallen comrades visit him in dreams. Some were close friends. Some, he barely knew. Some are whole again. Some, he cannot bear to see.

He bolts awake in the night, then roams the house, checking locks on doors and windows. He doesn’t get back to sleep. He just paces.

“They say it will be over, but sometimes, I just can’t see it,” said Tom Gibson, 29, of Bridgeport, who has a wife, a 2-year-old daughter and an unwanted carryover from his time in Afghanistan. It’s called post-traumatic stress disorder.

As the U.S. Army labors strains under the pressure of two wars, the toll on its warriors is visible.  Lost limbs and wheelchairs make unforgettable images, but for many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, some of the most troubling scars lie hidden.

At the top of the list is PTSD, a mix of anxiety, guilt and depression that gained public awareness during the Vietnam War. Since 2002, nearly 40,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD symptoms, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Though misunderstood, PTSD is treatable, as long as the person seeks help. For many ex-soldiers, that’s not so easy.

“It’s the stigma of a warrior having to admit that something in his or her life is out of control,” said Larry Lantinga, a psychologist and co-manager of behavioral health at the Syracuse VA Medical Center. “At post-deployment or discharge, often they will deny everything and say, ‘I just want to go home.’ By the time we see them, something in their lives is not right.”

That’s how it went for Gibson. After returning in 2004 from nine months in Afghanistan, he downplayed his problems to counselors at Fort Drum, the Army’s post near Watertown. But after he received an honorable discharge in 2005, Gibson couldn’t put get his life back on course.

In January 2006, he sought counseling at the Syracuse VA Center. He couldn’t sleep at night. He couldn’t relax.  Weary and frustrated, he couldn’t keep a job. For 11 months, he received medication and counseling, trying to rise from his doldrums.

On Dec. 6, a letter arrived from the U.S. Army.

“You are relieved from your present reserve component status and are ordered to report for a period of active duty,” it said.

He was ordered to re-enter the Army for up to 18 months and work anywhere from Arizona to Baghdad.

The country was calling Gibson back, and he was falling apart.

‘Panicked and scared’

Upon enlistment, every U.S. soldier commits to eight years of military service, regardless of how long he or she spends on active duty. After being discharged, veterans are placed on the Army’s Individual Ready Reserve list, a pool that numbers 78,000.

“Back in the ’80s, nobody thought about the IRR,” said Fred Bush, the Syracuse VA’s coordinator of Returning Veterans Education Outreach. “It’d be, ‘Hell, they’re not going to call me back.’ Well, that’s a real concern now.”

Since 2001, the Army has recalled 10,128 veterans from the IRR list. To keep boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has also extended combat deployments from 12 to 15 months, required soldiers to serve extra tours through the “stop-loss” program and called up large numbers of National Guard troops.

The recall letter hit Gibson hard.

“He reported being very panicked and scared, and did not know what to do,” psychologist Louise Weller wrote Dec. 7, in an evaluation for the Syracuse VA. Based on Gibson’s phone call, Weller described him as “highly anxious and distressed.”

After talks with his counselors, Gibson requested an exemption to his call-up, based on health concerns. The Army pushed back his reporting date by a month, to Feb. 22.

The Army grants about half the requests for IRR exemptions, according to the Pentagon. The most common reasons: health concerns of soldiers or hardship for their immediate families.

“Exemptions are approved when their return to active duty would create an undue hardship or that their physical or mental readiness has changed to the point they are no longer capable of performing their duty,” the Army said in an e-mail.

As the wars grind on, concerns are growing about what the Army traditionally has called “combat stress.”

A 2007 Pentagon study reports that 17 percent of the soldiers in Iraq show PTSD symptoms. The frequency rises among soldiers who serve multiple and longer deployments.

PTSD has been around for as long as war. In earlier times, people called it “shell shock” or “war neurosis.” In 1980, after exhaustive study of Vietnam veterans, the American Psychiatric Association gave it a name.

In 1988, a study estimated that 13 percent of Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD. The war in Vietnam took place in jungle villages. Iraq is being waged in desert cities. But in both, U.S. troops could not outwardly tell the difference between friend and enemy. And buried explosives brought about a constant threat of instant death.

In mid-December, after receiving his call-up orders, Gibson quit his job as a telemarketer. He gathered VA records for his arthritic knees and flat feet, and sent his psychiatric assessments to the Army.

On March 9, the answer arrived.

“Your request for an exemption is disapproved,” it said.

He was ordered to report to Fort Benning, Ga., on April 22.

Survivor’s guilt

Thomas G. Gibson grew up in the Sullivan County community of Livingston Manor, and graduated from the State University of New York College at Oneonta in 2000 with a degree in math and physics. He wanted to be a teacher.

To pay college loans, Gibson enlisted for a four-year hitch in the Army on Aug. 29, 2001. Two weeks later, the World Trade Center fell.

In August 2003, as a specialist in the 10th Mountain Division’s 2nd Brigade, Gibson deployed to Afghanistan for six months, a tour that was later extended to nine.

His job: driving Humvees around the city of Ghazni.

In 2003, the Army was still adjusting to the threat of IEDs — improvised explosive devices — buried along roads. This was the era of “soft-skinned” Humvees, without the reinforced armor of today’s vehicles. As the death toll rose, soldiers began filling Humvees with sandbags. But when a soft-skin triggered a roadside bomb head-on, somebody likely died.

Gibson lost several friends to IEDs. But his own convoys were hit only once, without casualties. He never saw a firefight. But he lost a friend in a helicopter crash, a flight he at one point was scheduled to make.

But Gibson said he does not believe he experienced the kinds of atrocities that justify a soldier having PTSD.

“It’s never seemed right that I could be messed up,” he said. “It’s like I have no right to be complaining, no right to be experiencing this.”

In May 2004, his brigade returned to Fort Drum. Gibson saw a counselor about his anger and sleepless nights. Upon his 2005 discharge, he thought his nightmares would vanish.

“It was the anticipation of getting out of the uniform,” he said. “I was going to move on and start the next part of my life.”

With his wife, Joann, and a baby daughter, Gibson bought a home in Bridgeport, near Oneida Lake. He planned to go back to school and get his teaching degree. But something wasn’t right.

“There was just no joy in things. I stayed in the house. I didn’t get out. I didn’t like driving. Everything just kind of hit me,” he said.

In November 2005, the Albany VA Medical Center diagnosed Gibson’s PTSD symptoms, though an examiner there wrote that Gibson was downplaying his problems to avoid being “labeled.”

Two months later, Gibson sought help at the Syracuse VA.

“He has recurring intrusive thoughts, memories, images and recollections of his time in Afghanistan,” his VA evaluator would write later. “He cannot relax.  He has trouble feeling safe for any sustained period of time.”

Gibson went through ups and downs. But as the wars continued, and the news reports kept coming, he couldn’t climb out of the hole.

“I’d think, ‘I’m here, with all these opportunities. I can go out and enjoy my day. And those guys over there, they can’t.’

And then in December, the Army called him back.

A decision

In February, Gibson appealed the Army’s rejection of his exemption request. The Army pushed his date-to-report back to June.

Over the next month, Gibson put his life on hold, unsure of what to do. If he reported, he feared being unable to do his job, and maybe costing someone his or her life. If he didn’t report, he’d lose his honorable discharge and veteran status. He grew more angry, more frustrated, more numb.

“He continues to procrastinate and then belittle himself for that,” Weller, the psychologist, wrote in April.

When Army caseworkers called his home, Gibson was too distraught to take the phone. He asked Bush, his VA counselor, to call back and help him. He sent a bundle of VA medical records to the Army, then waited.

“His insight and judgment are good,” wrote VA examining provider Michael Thompson, on April 12. “He is in appropriate treatment for his needs.”

Thompson said Gibson showed a “full-range” of PTSD symptoms.

“Prominent psychic numbing is noted.  In my opinion, at the present time, this veteran would not be capable of maintaining himself in a reliable and stable manner.”

Thompson suggested Gibson spend time at the VA’s residential PTSD program in Batavia.

On April 18, a letter arrived from the U.S.Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis.

“Your orders for mobilization have been revoked,” it said. “Because further medical review is required on your care, you will be placed in the Standby Reserve.  If you are found to be fit for duty in the future, you may be mobilized at that time.”

The decision brought feelings of relief and guilt. Gibson could not celebrate.

“I feel that I’m letting the guys down,” he said.

“Good days are when I appreciate so much,” he said recently. “That I own my home, that I have a beautiful little girl. On good days, I get something done. Even if it’s just playing around with her, it’s a feeling of accomplishment.

“Bad days are when I have to put myself in a room, because I can’t even deal with my little girl. I hurt too much to even play horse with her. I get hung up on the news, and it just makes me want to cry, thinking about what the troops are going through. You’re sitting there knowing that someone’s over there, maybe dying that very minute, and that’s all you think about. You’re tired by 5 o’clock at night, but you don’t sleep until 1 in the morning.”

Gibson said he hopes to get his life back on course. But the anxieties will not end as long as the wars continue.

“What it comes down to is, I’m back here now,” he said, “but there are guys over there still.  It’s not over.”

He will remain on the IRR Individual Ready Reserve list until August 2009.

Hart Seely can be reached at hseely@syracuse.com and 470-2247.