Ordered to Iraq War, an Afghanistan War Veteran Goes Down Fighting

Asked to Serve Again, a Soldier Goes Down Fighting

May 27, 2007, HOLLYWOOD, MARYLAND – The sniper fired. It was a clean shot, if there is such a thing. And down for good fell another American soldier.

His name was Sergeant James Dean, but everyone called him Jamie. He was the farm boy who fished, hunted and tossed a horseshoe like nobody else. He was the guy at the end of Toots Bar, nursing a Bud and talking Nascar. He was the driver of that blue Silverado at the red light, his hands on the wheel, his mind on combat horrors that made him moody, angry, withdrawn.

Now here he was, another American soldier, dead. Only Sergeant Dean was killed at the front door of his childhood home, the day after Christmas and three weeks before his redeployment, shot by a sniper representing the government for whom he had already risked his life in Afghanistan. His wife and parents received the news not by a knock on the door, but by gunfire in the neighborhood.

“If they had just left him alone,” says his wife, Muriel.

In the summer of 2001, weeks before Sept. 11, Jamie stunned his family by enlisting in the Army; he was 23. A woman had just broken his heart, yes, but he explained that he wanted to experience life beyond installing air conditioners in confining St. Mary’s County. And his younger sister, an Air Force medic, had been talking up the military.

From April 2004 to April 2005, Jamie served in Afghanistan, far from the Chesapeake Bay. Now and then he’d talk to family members by telephone. “Just, ‘Hi, I’m fine,’ ” his mother, Elaine, says. “Or, ‘It sucks here.’ ”

Jamie came back quieter in the summer of 2005, with “DEAN” tattooed on his upper back and a cobra tattooed on his muscle-defined arm. But he kept private any changes beneath the skin, his mother says. “ ‘You don’t want to know, Mom,’ he would always say.”

One night at Toots, while drinking a beer, he met a woman named Muriel whose bluish-green eyes entranced him. The couple became inseparable, cobbling together a family that included her two children, three dogs and a cat. Muriel’s good for Jamie, people said, even without knowing how she was nudging him to get counseling for nightmares so bad they would both wake up soaked in sweat.

“The patient states he feels very nervous, has a hard time sleeping, feels nauseous in the a.m., and loses his temper a lot, ‘real bad,’ ” reported a Veterans Affairs evaluation from December 2005. “Was nearby an explosion that destroyed an Humvee with four G.I.’s killed in front of his eyes.”

“The patient is tired of feeling bad,” it said.

Jamie was prescribed some medication that did not seem to work at first. (“Cries for no reason,” said a report in February 2006.) His doctor adjusted the prescription.

Things got better, it seemed. Jamie returned to air-conditioning work. He donned a white tuxedo and married Muriel in a summer ceremony at the Elks Lodge. He sang some country-western karaoke and talked about getting his wife to go deer hunting.

A few days after Thanksgiving, a FedEx truck delivered an envelope to the Dean farm just as Jamie was about to go hunting. It was a form letter of redeployment, as impersonal as a bank statement.

“It was downhill after that,” Muriel says.

He withdrew from the present, it seemed. He drank more, and took his medication less. Finally, on Christmas Day, he and Muriel returned from a family gathering with plans to watch his favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys, on television. He went out to buy some beer — but went to Toots Bar instead.

She called him, and he came home, livid. He smashed some glasses, said something about winding up in a body bag, and sped away in his Silverado. He wound up at the family home, alone, talking on a cellphone with his sister, Kelly, saying things like: “I just can’t do it anymore.”

When his sister heard a gunshot, she called 911. The deputy sheriffs arrived at the isolated farmhouse around 10 p.m. and quickly determined that Jamie was drunk, agitated and carrying a shotgun. He told the deputies to back off.

Based on something a family member had said, the police knew that Jamie had other shotguns in the house, but they mistakenly believed he was an Army Ranger. “Rambo,” his mother says ruefully.

At 4:19 in the morning, the police shot dozens of tear-gas canisters, smashing the windows in front of Jamie’s horseshoe trophies, piercing walls decorated with garland. Several minutes later, Jamie fired shotgun pellets in the general direction of a police car parked at least 50 yards away. Then he sat down on the back porch.

A situation in which an armed man was in his own house, alone and a threat to no one but himself, had now escalated into a military action. On the ground, men with guns; in the sky, the whop-whop of helicopters. Now and then, Jamie would respond to some movement or sound with a shot into the ground or into the air.

Around noon, two negotiators pulled up to a family friend’s garage, where Jamie’s loved ones were cloistered a half-mile away. His wife was pacing. His mother was bracing herself. His father, Joey, was staring into the woods.

The negotiators asked them to say gentle things to Jamie into a tape-recorder. Muriel remembers calling him baby, saying she loved him and asking him to come on out.

At 12:25, a negotiator talked briefly by telephone to Jamie, who indicated he might come out; “I’m going home,” he said. Then the police cellphone’s battery died.

At 12:34, Jamie was reached again by telephone, but the volume was low and the negotiator could not make out what was being said.

At 12:45, the police cut power to the house and began shooting more tear gas through the front and the back of the house.

At 12:47, an armored vehicle called a Peace Keeper pulled up to the house. Jamie opened the front door and, according to the police, pointed his 20-gauge shotgun at the vehicle. A state police sniper, positioned in a garage 70 yards away, took aim.

Later, a spokesman for the Maryland State Police would say the department was reviewing its actions, but would refer to a statement by its superintendent, Col. Thomas E. Hutchins, in which he said that Sergeant Dean bore “sole responsibility.” The police could not walk away, the colonel had said, because the soldier had the potential to do harm to himself or to others.

Later, Richard D. Fritz, the state’s attorney for St. Mary’s County, would criticize the state police as using tactics that were “progressively assaultive” and “most unfortunate.” In the end, he would say, this paramilitary operation was “directed at an individual down at the end of a dark road, holed up in his father’s house, with no hostages.”

And later, the Dean family would be left with the mess of absence. Jamie’s blood on the cream-colored carpet. The dozens of holes in the walls. The family photo albums that still carry the whiff of tear gas, burning the eyes.

But at that moment, in the early afternoon of the day after Christmas, they heard the gunfire in the distance, and they knew another American soldier had fallen.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Ordered to Iraq War, an Afghanistan War Veteran Goes Down Fighting

Venezuelan TV Station RCTV Closed for Supporting Anti-Democratic Coup

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs: Distorting the Venezuelan media story

May 25, 2007 – The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV “is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it.” Dubbing RCTV “a voice of free speech,” Holmes explained, “Chavez, in a move that’s angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government.”

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as “a network that has been critical of Chávez.”

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more “proof” that Chávez is a “dictator.” Wrote Diehl, “Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political.”

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV’s history, the Venezuelan government’s explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez’s democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. “I must thank Venevisión and RCTV,” one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez’s ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): “We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.”

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl’s colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), “RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests,” resulting in the coup, “and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal.” The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), “[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez.”

As FAIR’s magazine Extra! argued last November, “Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.”

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV’s case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV’s refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

  What RCTV did simply can’t be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they’re forced to, but simply because they don’t agree with what’s happening, you’ve lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.

The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV’s involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station’s criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela’s media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.

When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists—all groups that have condemned Venezuela’s action in denying RCTV’s license renewal—he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV’s actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups’ arguments, “Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?”

McElwee acknowledged the critics’ point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez’s presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: “Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.”

Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:

  The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Venezuelan TV Station RCTV Closed for Supporting Anti-Democratic Coup

Iraq War: Trust and Betrayal

“In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.” That’s what President Bush said last year, in a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation’s history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness.

Now that war has turned into an epic disaster, in part because the war’s architects, whom we now know were warned about the risks, didn’t want to hear about them. Yet Congress seems powerless to stop it. How did it all go so wrong?

Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled into war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning — even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war with Iraq.

In fact, the very first time Mr. Bush declared a war on terror that “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” people should have realized that he was going to use the terrorist attack to justify anything and everything.

When he used his first post-attack State of the Union to denounce an “axis of evil” consisting of three countries that had nothing to do either with 9/11 or with each other, alarm bells should have gone off.

But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attack, wanted to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time before Americans were willing to admit to themselves just how thoroughly their trust had been betrayed.

It’s a terrible story, yet it’s also understandable. I wasn’t really surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.

The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr. Bush’s war.

Yet the war goes on.

To keep the war going, the administration has brought the original bogyman back out of the closet. At first, Mr. Bush said he would bring Osama bin Laden in, dead or alive. Within seven months after 9/11, however, he had lost interest: “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure,” he said in March 2002. “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

In all of 2003, Mr. Bush, who had an unrelated war to sell, made public mention of the man behind 9/11 only seven times.

But Osama is back: last week Mr. Bush invoked his name 11 times in a single speech, warning that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda — which wasn’t there when we went in — will be the winner. And Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.

Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.

Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.

When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West,” he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.

And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will “follow us home” if we leave, he should be laughed at.

But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Iraq War: Trust and Betrayal

More Iraq War Veterans Bring Disabling Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Home

Problems seen in VA, military handling of disorder. 

When he closes his eyes, Edmond Rivera can smell the burning flesh of his fellow soldier. He can see the man — his friend — clawing on the driver’s-side window of his Humvee, trapped by flames after a bomb set his vehicle afire on an Iraqi roadside.

Though Rivera struggled to save his friend, he couldn’t get get into the vehicle. All he could do was stand in the road and listen to the screams.

“You’re two feet away from someone, watching the flesh melt off his bones, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” Rivera, 43, said of an experience now seared into his memory. “You can’t forget.”

Though he returned from Iraq more than two years ago, Rivera said his dreams — and indeed, his waking life — still are haunted by that image, and by memories of his own vehicle being twice damaged by explosions while he served as a squad leader in a military police platoon.

Now, the career military man fears driving on Louisville’s highways. On the Fourth of July, he goes from window to window to make sure fireworks and firecrackers aren’t bombs or gunshots.. And he tries to stay in his Louisville home as much as possible because it’s the only place he feels safe.

Like nearly one out of every five Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rivera has post-traumatic stress disorder. And like many others, he experienced delays getting it diagnosed and now faces the possibility of redeployment that doctors say could worsen his condition.

As the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with the disorder grows — some expect it eventually will exceed the 19 percent rate among Vietnam veterans — military and veterans hospitals across the nation say they have placed greater emphasis on screening for and treating PTSD.

“No military in the history of the world has done more to identify, evaluate, prevent and treat the mental-health needs and concerns of its personnel,” said Department of Defense spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith.

Yet there is evidence that screening has had spotty results, and many veterans still aren’t getting the early care that experts say can greatly improve their chances of living a normal life.

A Defense Department task force report released this month calls for a greater focus on prevention and screening for the disorder but acknowledges that the military’s mental health system doesn’t have enough money or staff to meet future needs. Smith could not say how much is being spent on PTSD, saying officials are analyzing that now.

And the Government Accountability Office reports that only 22 percent of military members screened and found at risk for PTSD were referred for further evaluations.

Some, like Rivera, say they didn’t receive any PTSD screening from the military. Rivera was diagnosed only after his girlfriend insisted he go to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Louisville almost two years after returning to the United States.

A couple of weeks ago, Rivera, an Army reservist, got orders to spend 179 days in Honduras, training local fighters. He figures the Army doesn’t know about his disorder, since it was diagnosed by the VA hospital, not military doctors.

But PTSD doesn’t automatically disqualify someone from being redeployed, even though many psychologists, including some within the military, liken it to reinfecting a psychological wound.

Rivera is fighting his potential deployment, saying he just wants to stay home and heal.

“I feel like I’ve served my time,” he said. “Peace is all I want.”

Flashback to attack

As Rivera was driving down the Watterson Expressway with his girlfriend two months ago, an empty box flew up from the road and hit his windshield. He doesn’t remember the rest of the drive, only that it was fast, and that he walked around a Harley-Davidson dealership for 3 ½ hours afterward, decompressing.

His girlfriend, Gail Bratcher, took the wheel on the way home, while he reclined the passenger seat so he wouldn’t have to look out the window.

Mentally, he said, hitting the box took him back to an incident in Iraq three years earlier, when he was an Army staff sergeant, sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle traveling with a convoy of fuel trucks. The road was nicknamed “IED Alley,” referring to the improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq.

An explosion threw a piece of asphalt onto the vehicle’s hood, he said, bringing him “from calm to 1,000 degrees in a split second.” Rivera, an amateur photographer and videographer, captured the blast on video.

The camera also was rolling a month later, when the hastily repaired vehicle — with the words “Ed’s Ouchy” scribbled on the front — drove near another IED. That one cracked the windshield and sent a 30-foot plume of smoke into the air. It also damaged the hearing in Rivera’s right ear, he said, and left shrapnel in the face of another soldier.

After returning to the United States in December 2004, Rivera said, he found himself instinctively searching roadsides for discolorations or strange objects that could be explosives. He looked for phantom shooters on overpasses. His girlfriend took over most of the driving.

As the months passed, Bratcher said, she watched her once fun-loving boyfriend — a man who traveled the globe during his 23 years in the Army and as an active reservist — retreat.

Six months after getting back from Iraq, he reluctantly returned to his human resources job with the Army Reserve, but commuting proved harrowing, and when he got home, he usually stayed there.

He lost interest in chess, golf, even photography. At night, he often woke up in a cold sweat, and Bratcher would sometimes catch him looking out windows, “checking the perimeter.”

When she tried to comfort him or cuddle, he wouldn’t let her get too close.

“He was the same person,” Bratcher said, “but yet he wasn’t.”

“I didn’t know how to feel,” Rivera said.

Rivera was suffering classic symptoms of PTSD — flashbacks, sleep problems, emotional numbness, jumpiness and hyper-vigilance. Some experts say it’s not surprising so many Iraq veterans suffer from the disorder, given the constant stress of close combat and a largely hidden enemy.

Experts also say doctors are better at recognizing the disorder than they were years ago, which may account partly for the high numbers of affected Iraq veterans.

In Rivera’s case, Bratcher wasn’t sure what was wrong, only that he needed to be checked. In November of last year, VA hospital doctors diagnosed him with PTSD and depression.

Screening, treatment

Psychologists say delays in diagnosing PTSD increase the possibility of serious problems, such as depression, substance abuse and even suicide. Ideally, anyone experiencing symptoms for three to four months should seek treatment, say those who work with PTSD patients at the Louisville VA hospital.

But that often doesn’t happen, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, veterans who returned from Iraq or Afghanistan before the end of 2003 didn’t necessarily get screened. After that, the Department of Defense went national with a post-deployment health assessment that includes four PTSD questions.

Bob Wolz of Rineyville, Ky., for example, said he got no screening when he returned from Iraq in September 2003 to Fort Hood in Texas.

But even some soldiers who returned after that didn’t get screened. Officials at Fort Knox’s Ireland Army Community Hospital said they started offering the screening in October 2004. And Rivera said he got no screening when he returned from Iraq to North Carolina in December 2004.

Carl Mumpower, a North Carolina psychologist and national expert in PTSD, said the military recently has gotten better at ensuring that all returning soldiers are screened.

In addition to offering mental health care in Iraq, defense officials said, screenings are now offered within a week of a soldier’s return, and then reviewed with a medical provider. A second screening, added nationally last year, is given about three to six months later.

Screening, however, doesn’t always lead to treatment, according to the federal GAO.

Agency reports from this year and last showed that a relatively small percentage of military members found to be at risk for PTSD were referred for further evaluations: 23 percent in the Army and Air Force, 18 percent in the Navy and 15 percent in the Marines.

Officials could not provide comparable local figures, but Rogers, at Fort Knox, said medical professionals virtually always refer soldiers for further care if they suspect a problem.

One additional problem is that soldiers sometimes choose not to follow up. The defense task force’s preliminary report noted a stigma surrounding mental health problems, which military officials are trying to address.

“They’re concerned it will hurt their military career,” Michael Hollifield, an associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the University of Louisville, said of soldiers. “And there’s this thought that people fake it.”

New tour possible

According to a November memo from the assistant secretary of defense, psychotic and bipolar disorders automatically disqualify someone from being redeployed by the military — but PTSD does not.

The memo calls the disorder treatable, although it says the potential for effective treatment is considered on a case-by-case basis that takes into account the soldier’s vulnerabilities and demands of the job.

If soldiers are diagnosed outside the military health system, such as at a VA hospital or a family doctor’s office, it’s up to them to raise the issue — although officials say they are working to share medical records more easily between the military and Veterans Affairs.

At Fort Knox, Army reservists treated elsewhere and ordered to redeploy must let their commanders know of their diagnosis, said Col. Susan Rogers, a psychologist and behavioral health chief at Ireland Hospital. Even if they don’t initially, it should come up during the pre-deployment process, when soldiers are asked whether they got mental health care during the previous year. And those with mental health concerns or a history of receiving care are evaluated for their fitness to redeploy.

Army officials did not respond to repeated requests for the number of soldiers with PTSD who are now deployed. But several psychologists, including Rogers, said they think that number should be zero.

“I would never recommend that,” Rogers said, adding that soldiers shouldn’t be drummed out of the military for having the condition, but should be directed to appropriate military jobs in the United States.

Redeploying those with PTSD ” absolutely makes no sense. It’s asking for disaster,” said Lebanon, Ky., psychiatrist James Bland, who has treated recently returned soldiers with PTSD. “It’s like sending someone who had a heart attack back to dig ditches. They might last a while, but they may die.”

Irv Mattingly, a Vietnam veteran diagnosed with PTSD who now works with the Kentucky Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, said deploying troops with the disorder could also endanger others.

“Would you like to be in that foxhole with someone who has PTSD?” he asked.

Rivera, for his part, said he has informed Army officials he doesn’t want to go to Honduras and is awaiting a response. He said he dreads the idea of driving around the country and the even remote possibility of facing combat. “I just don’t want to get shot at,” he said, adding that he wants to find a civilian job and retire from the military.

In the meantime, he said, he continues to work to exorcise the demons of war with therapy at the VA hospital, weekly support groups and the anti-depressant Zoloft.

“I live minute by minute, day by day and just hope nothing goes ‘boom,’ ” he said. “When you see the things I’ve seen and had to do the things I’ve done, you don’t forget.”

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

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on More Iraq War Veterans Bring Disabling Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Home

Holiday resonates with young veterans – Afghanistan, Iraq troops understand the sacrifice

Kevin Jackson today will be doing more than grilling out at his home in Cherokee to recognize Memorial Day.

The 27-year-old Army Reserve specialist and veteran of the war in Afghanistan plans to visit the graves of Sgt. Joe Ray and Sgt. Kevin Akins. Both men served with him in the 391st Combat Engineers. They were killed in action in March 2006.

“They paid the ultimate sacrifice,” said the father of two.

While Americans enjoy time with family and friends during the traditional kick off to summer, about 160,000 U.S. soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As they return, many will bridge a gap between an aging veteran population and a generation of people who knew of war mostly through movies.

Before this war, a common grumbling around American Legion halls and other spots where veterans gathered was that the young didn’t fully understand the wartime sacrifices made by their grandfathers and great grandfathers.

But Jackson, like many of the nation’s youngest veterans, has a new take on what the holiday means. After serving in combat, he has a personal connection.

Since the war on terror started, almost 4,000 soldiers have died. Six soldiers from Western North Carolina units have been killed since 2003 — four of those were with Jackson’s Army Reserve group.

“Young people tend to forget about the soldiers over there fighting and doing their jobs,” he said. “They forget once everything is said and done. And we are asking society just not to forget what we have fought for.”

United by war
Memorial Day started as a day to remember the men who died in the Civil War. After World War I, it was expanded to include soldiers who died in all wars or any military action.

Today, 900 soldiers from the North Carolina National Guard are in Iraq.

Jackson joined the service in 2003, even though the war on terror had started.

“I felt the need to serve my country because of what was going on,” he said.

He wanted to give back to the U.S. and his people in Cherokee. He said the war has changed him. Readjusting to society has been hard sometimes.

Jackson worked in mine clearing and removing improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. It can be one of the most dangerous jobs in the military.

He said it was hard to move from that kind of daily stress to life back in Cherokee. He’s now studying business management at Montreat College.

Canton resident Jim Howell, who served in the Air Force in Vietnam years before Jackson was born, said veterans across generations share that same feeling.

The rise of American Legion clubs and Veterans of Foreign Wars groups after World War II and Korea kept soldiers a close-knit community even after the battles ended. The popularity of these organizations continued to some extent into the Vietnam War era.

Most local American Legion officials say they see few young veterans joining. Family commitments, work and education goals may have something to do with the trend.

But Howell said veterans are connected, even if they don’t meet at the Legion Hall or the V, as many called the VFW.

“It is the same,” he said. “Anybody that has to go through boot camp — you get the message pretty quick. It is patriotism. And they really instill that into you. It is something that you’ll have the rest of your life.”

Pass the meaning down

Jackson and Howell, although separated by decades and veterans of two very different wars, feel the same about the people they served with.

“I think about them a lot,” Jackson said. “That is brotherhood. I think it is a strong bond.”

And that’s part of the message of Memorial Day: War is universal, and the men and women who fought and died should be honored and respected for their sacrifice.

John Waltz is the communications officer for the Iraq War Veterans Organization. The California-based group helps veterans with a wide range of needs, including money to cover expenses and mental health counseling. It was started by Russell K. Terry just days after the Iraq invasion.

Waltz served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the men and women he served with have a respect for the meaning of the day.

“All of the soldiers and veterans of this war are going to have a respect for Memorial Day,” he said. “We do have a respect for all our veterans that have come before us. For us, Memorial Day is definitely a solemn day.”

That is something Patty White, training coordinator of Boy Scout Troop 73 in Arden, hopes to pass down to her 10-year-old son and his troop.

On Saturday, the 10 members of the troop decorated the graves of veterans at Forest Lawn Memorial Park cemetery in Candler with flags.

The newly formed troop started the tradition last year. This year, they will have a Korean War veteran as a speaker to offer a better perspective on why Memorial Day is important.

White said a lot of the families of the troop members are staying in town so that their sons can help decorate the graves.

She and her husband and troop Scoutmaster John White have tried to instill the meaning of Memorial Day in their son.

“There are so many people who have given their time, their lives to go and fight in wars for us and protect our country,” she said. “We taught him that even though the word is freedom, it is not free. And these people have paid dearly. Their families have paid dearly. They have lost loved ones.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Holiday resonates with young veterans – Afghanistan, Iraq troops understand the sacrifice

As Allies Turn Foe in Iraq War, Disillusion Rises in Among U.S. Soldiers

BAGHDAD, IRAQ — Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought: ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

A small minority of Delta Company soldiers — the younger, more recent enlistees in particular — seem to still wholeheartedly support the war. Others are ambivalent, torn between fear of losing more friends in battle, longing for their families and a desire to complete their mission.

With few reliable surveys of soldiers’ attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in the company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers in this 83-man unit over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.

They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs — planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints — and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies.

“In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war,” said Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican” and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. “Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.”

It is not a question of loyalty, the soldiers insist. Sergeant Safstrom, for example, comes from a thoroughly military family. His mother and father have served in the armed forces, as have his three sisters, one brother and several uncles. One week after the Sept. 11 attacks, he walked into a recruiter’s office and joined the Army.

“You guys want to start a fight in my backyard, I got something for you,” he recalls thinking at the time.

But in Sergeant Safstrom’s view, the American presence is futile. “If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy,” he said. “It would go straight into a civil war. That’s how it feels, like we’re putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here.”

Their many deployments have added to the strain. After spending six months in Iraq, the soldiers of Delta Company had been home for only 24 hours last December when the news came. “Change your plans,” they recall being told. “We’re going back to Iraq.”

Nineteen days later, just after Christmas, Capt. Douglas Rogers and the men of Delta Company were on their way to Kadhimiya, a Shiite enclave of about 300,000 people. As part of the so-called surge of American troops, their primary mission was to maintain stability in the area and prepare the Iraqi Army and the police to take control of the neighborhood.

“I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force,” said the barrel-chested Captain Rogers of San Antonio. “The Iraqi security forces would step up.”

It has not worked out that way. Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”

“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open, he said, a rarity in Baghdad due partly to Delta Company’s patrols.

Captain Rogers acknowledges the skepticism of many of his soldiers. “Our unit has already sent two soldiers home in a box,” he said. “My soldiers don’t see the same level of commitment from the Iraqi Army units they’re partnered with.”

Yet there is, he insists, no crisis of morale: “My guys are all professionals. I tell them to do something, they do it.” His dictum is proved on patrol, where his soldiers walk the streets for hours in the stifling heat, providing cover for one another with crisp efficiency.

On April 29, a Delta Company patrol was responding to a tip at Al Sadr mosque, a short distance from its base. The soldiers saw men in the distance erecting barricades that they set ablaze, and the streets emptied out quickly. Then a militia, believed to be the Mahdi Army, began firing at them from rooftops and windows.

Sgt. Kevin O’Flarity, a squad leader, jumped into his Humvee to join his fellow soldiers, racing through abandoned Iraqi Army and police checkpoints to the battle site.

He and his squad maneuvered their Humvees through alleyways and side streets, firing back at an estimated 60 insurgents during a gun battle that raged for two and a half hours. A rocket-propelled grenade glanced off Sergeant O’Flarity’s Humvee, failing to penetrate.

When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.

Captain Rogers admits, “The 29th was a watershed moment in a negative sense, because the Iraqi Army would not fight with us,” adding, “Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us.”

The battle changed the attitude among his soldiers toward the war, he said. “Before that fight, there were a few true believers.” Captain Rogers said. “After the 29th, I don’t think you’ll find a true believer in this unit. They’re paratroopers. There’s no question they’ll fulfill their mission. But they’re fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldier and chain of command.”

To Sergeant O’Flarity, the Iraqi security forces are militias beholden to local leaders, not the Iraqi government. “Half of the Iraqi security forces are insurgents,” he said.

As for his views on the war, Sergeant O’Flarity said, “I don’t believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war.”

“We’ve all lost friends over here,” he said. “Most of us don’t know what we’re fighting for anymore. We’re serving our country and friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.”

“I don’t want any more of my guys to get hurt or die,” he continued. “If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it’s not worth it.”

Staff Sgt. James Griffin grew up in Troy, N.C., near the Special Operations base at Fort Bragg. His dream was to be a soldier, and growing up, he would skip school and volunteer to play the role of the enemy during Special Operations training exercises. When he was 17, he joined the Army.

Now 22, Sergeant Griffin is a Delta Company section leader. On the night of May 5, as he neared an Iraqi police checkpoint with a convoy of Humvees, Sergeant Griffin spotted what looked like a camouflaged cinderblock and immediately halted the convoy. His vigilance may have saved the lives of several soldiers. Under the camouflage was a massive, six-array, explosively formed penetrator — a deadly roadside bomb that cuts through the Humvees’ armor with ease.

The insurgents quickly set off the device, but the Americans were at a safe distance. An explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to check the area. As the ordnance team rolled back to base, they were attacked with a second roadside bomb near another Iraqi checkpoint. One soldier was killed and two were wounded.

No one has been able to explain why two bombs were found near Iraqi checkpoints, bombs that Iraqi soldiers and the police had either failed to notice or helped to plant.

Sergeant Griffin, too, understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but he says they and the war effort must be given more time.

“If we throw this problem to the side, it’s not going to fix itself,” he said. “We’ve created the Iraqi forces. We gave them Humvees and equipment. For however long they say they need us here, maybe we need to stay.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on As Allies Turn Foe in Iraq War, Disillusion Rises in Among U.S. Soldiers

VA Creates Red Tape to Deny Care to Iraq War Veterans

Not Supporting Our Troops: VA essentially creating red tape to deny care to veterans

Sean Johnson broke three vertebrae in his back when he fell off a truck in Tikrit, Iraq. He ended up having surgery on his own after the military effectively refused to treat him. It took mounds of red tape and calls to Sen. Evan Bayh’s office to resolve the medical bills and disability status.

One Sunday in January 2005, Spc. Sean Johnson fell off a truck. He had been working on a construction project near the Iraqi city of Tikrit with his unit of the Ohio National Guard when he slipped and fell hard, landing on his back.

Because it was Sunday and the troop clinic wasn’t open for non-emergency injuries, Johnson waited until Monday to see a doctor for the intense pain in his back. The doctor prescribed ibuprofen and sent him back to duty.

Over the next few days, the pain got worse, and Johnson returned again and again to the clinic, where he was given more ibuprofen and sent back to duty. He said the other members of his unit accused him of malingering. Still in severe pain a month later, Johnson returned home on regular leave and saw his family doctor. The doctor ordered an MRI, which revealed three fractured vertebrae in Johnson’s lower back. Johnson called his Guard unit and told the commander that a specialist recommended immediate surgery to stabilize his spine.

That single phone call would plunge Johnson into a bureaucratic swamp created by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would take him nearly two years to reach the other side.

Roughly 1.4 million men and women have served in the armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan since the fall of 2001, some career military and some who were inspired to join after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. About 4,000 have died, and thousands more have been injured, many – like Johnson – in non-combat situations.

This isn’t a story about bureaucratic bumbling – or even about overwhelmed caseworkers trying to fight their way through mounds of files. Such stories are common. This also isn’t a story about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong.

As Americans prepare to observe Memorial Day, this is a story about how our government sometimes treats soldiers who come back alive. The government doesn’t let them get well.

Instead of doing whatever they have to do to make sure that soldiers and vets receive the care and benefits they were promised, the federal government is wielding red tape to effectively deny care and compensation and hold down costs. At the same time:

•The VA is cutting back the ranks of disability claims adjusters and giving performance bonuses to top VA officials.

•A backlog of disability cases and appeals wait for decisions – 1,800 in northern Indiana alone and an estimated 800,000 nationwide.

•Soldiers and others in the military who appeal disability decisions wait years for their cases to be heard.

All of this is apart from the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Washington Post revealed in February that wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed often become mired in red tape as they seek further treatment or decisions about whether they will stay in the military. The Post also discovered poor living conditions – including vermin, mold, filth and leaking roofs – in an Army building that houses recovering soldiers.

“They’re not incompetent,” said Paul Sullivan, a former VA official who resigned two years ago in a policy dispute and now heads Veterans for Common Sense. “This is intentional. This is the policy.”  [Note: Sullivan resigned in March 2006.]

And the swamp that tried to swallow Sean Johnson is about to get far larger.

Troop shortages have forced the military to redeploy units to war zones over and over, keeping most on active duty. Veterans activist groups are warning that a tidal wave of veterans with complex brain injuries and mental health problems will descend on the VA when the Iraq war finally ends and vets apply for health and disability benefits they were promised. They fear that the VA health system doesn’t have the resources available to be ready.

How can a government ask a group of its citizens to bleed and die on behalf of their country and then nickel and dime the injured survivors to death when they come back? The government not only doesn’t support the troops, it doesn’t even respect them.

Political analysts are fond of pointing out parallels between the war in Vietnam and the Iraq war, but the comparisons are strictly political. The Vietnam War was fought primarily by young male draftees, many of them poor and black. This war is being fought by men and women with spouses and children. National Guard members – whose average age is 33 – leave families and careers to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’re fighting a different war with different weapons. Improvised explosive devices – the weapon of choice among insurgents in Iraq – often cause devastating brain injuries.

Unless they volunteered, most soldiers in Vietnam did a single tour of duty. In a war fought using volunteers, many soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been deployed to war zones three or four times during their tenure, and for many others, their tours were extended. The multiple tours have led psychiatric experts to fear that as many as one-third of returning vets will develop post-traumatic stress disorder sometime after they return.

When Sean Johnson picked up the phone and told his commander he needed back surgery, he was ordered to report to the Army’s medical holding company in Fort Knox, Ky. He obeyed, taking his medical records with him. He never saw a doctor, but a medical assistant who evaluated him decided he didn’t need surgery after all and recommended epidural injections instead.

Three months and two injections later, Johnson demanded to be allowed to seek civilian health care. It was granted, and he finally had surgery in Fort Wayne to implant steel rods and screws in his back and fuse his vertebrae in December 2005, nearly a year after he was injured.

Then the bill arrived.

Even though he was injured in a war zone, the Army demanded that Johnson pay $6,000 of the $140,000 medical bill. Still recovering from surgery and the father of an infant son, Johnson didn’t have $6,000. After three months of haggling and a call from Sen. Evan Bayh’s office, the military eventually agreed to forget the bill.

Then Johnson set out to apply for disability payments, but when he applied, his unit said his records didn’t exist, even after nine requests from a county veterans’ service officer. Frustrated, Johnson contacted Bayh’s office again.

Lots of frustrated vets have contacted Bayh’s office lately. In the past year, VA cases have surpassed even the Social Security office as the government agency Bayh’s constituents complain most about, said Eric Kleiman, communications director in Bayh’s Washington office. Kleiman said the office currently has dozens of open cases involving veterans’ health benefits.

Complaints and news stories about the failure of the Department of Defense and the VA to care properly for injured vets prompted Bayh and other senators to offer several bills designed to improve conditions at military hospitals and reduce red tape in delivery of services to vets.

Much of the frustration arises because vets must wait six to eight months after they file disability requests for caseworkers to return with a decision, said George Jarboe, who runs the Allen County Veterans Service office. And unless they’re eligible for some other reason, most vets can’t use the VA health care system until their case is decided, he added.

If a disability claim is denied, said John Hickey, director of rehabilitation for the American Legion in Indiana, it can take three to four years for an appeal to be heard.

“I think the VA is swamped with claims,” Hickey said. “What they really need is more help.”

Hickey said the most telling indication that the VA’s disability staff is overwhelmed is the large number of appeals that his organization wins on behalf of vets.

“We win a lot of claims through the appeals process,” he said. “That tells you that something isn’t being done up-front. More than half of the claims we file are either remanded for more information or granted.”

Claims backlogs aren’t a natural consequence of war, Paul Sullivan argues. The VA created the backlog to discourage vets from filing. He cites a decision to cut the number of claims caseworkers as proof. And he added that it’s appalling that top VA officials would give themselves bonuses during wartime with benefits backlogs running at six months or more.

[Note: Paul Sullivan told the Journal Gazette that in 2005: 1) VA failed to hire additional claims processors even after VA knew more claims were being filed;  2) VA assigned many claims processors to review 72,000 PTSD claims approved previously; and 3) VA required a second claims processor to approve PTSD claims.  The last two policies slowed down processing, increased the claims backlog, and sent a message to veterans, VA employees, and veterans groups that VA would fight PTSD claims.]

Moreover, vets claiming disability must start by completing a 23-page claim form and obtain their own military discharge records and medical records from the Department of Defense.

“We’re five years into war and the VA and DOD aren’t sharing records,” Sullivan said. “They’ve just started to do it for the most seriously wounded soldiers.”

Congress recently shot down one of the VA’s plans to limit the number of veterans diagnosed with PTSD – and forbade the VA from reviewing 72,000 PTSD claims that had been previously approved. The VA bowed to public pressure and suspended a requirement that vets obtain a second signature for a PTSD claim.

Intervention from Bayh’s office got instant results. After months of claiming that his records didn’t exist, Johnson received a letter from his unit that said the records had been found in a box on the floor.

Last year, the VA finally granted Johnson a 40 percent disability, which entitles him to payments each month. Though his back injury left him unable to return to Iraq, Johnson is still under contract with the Guard. He is resisting reassignment to his original unit, arguing that the members of his unit harassed him after he was hurt.

Now 32, he lives near Avilla, shares custody of his 2-year-old son with his former wife, and has returned to work building houses for Redmond Homes. He still has back pain but says it’s bearable.

“I really thought this would be something that would make me proud,” he said of his time in the service. “It’s something I regret now. I even won two awards for the construction projects I worked on.”

In 1924, a grateful Congress voted a bonus to World War I veterans but decided not to pay it until 1945. In the meantime, the country slipped into the Great Depression, and in May 1932, some 15,000 destitute veterans descended on Washington, many with families in tow, set up camp near the Capitol and demanded their bonuses.

A month later, Congress voted down a bill that would have paid them. The attorney general ordered the “Bonus Army” to disperse, and when they refused, President Hoover ordered the army to clear them out. Led by Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur in a detachment that included Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Maj. George Patton, the men, women and children were driven out of the city. Their camp was burned, two babies died, and hospitals were swamped with casualties.

Seventy-five years later, America’s long, tormented history with its military veterans marches on.

Julie Creek is an editorial writer for The Journal Gazette. She joined the newspaper in 1990 and was an education reporter and assistant metro editor. You can reach her at 260-461-8609 or by email at jcreek@jg.net

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on VA Creates Red Tape to Deny Care to Iraq War Veterans

Memorial Day Message: Remember the dead, fight for the living

On Memorial Day this Monday, Americans will remember the men and women who gave their lives in defence of the nation, as well as what that nation stands for and promises to become. Some among us, however, honour those sacrifices not just once a year but throughout the year.

In the best spirit of “mourn for the dead and fight for the living”, the guys in Sarasota, Florida who joined together as Veterans for Common Sense (FLVCS) have been paying homage to their fallen comrades not simply with prayers and flowers, but, all the more critically, by working to sustain the ideals and aspirations for which they gave their lives.

As Gene Jones, the chair of the group, recalls, the idea of creating FLVCS first came up in the course of a fall 2002 lunchtime conversation among three friends, each of them a lawyer and Vietnam veteran – Dennis Plews, who saw combat in Southeast Asia as an artilleryman, Mike Burns, who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent five-years in Hanoi Hilton (alongside John McCain), and Jones himself, who served as an Air Force linguist.

Still outraged by the apparent theft of the 2000 presidential election, and increasingly worried about the Bush administration’s eagerness to invade Iraq, the three were now also agonizing over the prospect of being represented in congress by none other than the Republican Katherine Harris, the former secretary of state of Florida who had validated the 2000 election results that led to the Supreme Court’s anointment of George Bush as president. Tossing ideas around as they ate, Burns, Plews, and Jones resolved to work politically in support of “anybody except her”.

Harris was elected to congress that November. Still, the three veterans, along with the nearly 300 others who responded to their calls for action, would not give up. They now set themselves to opposing the Administration’s drive to war. Laying claim to the memory and legacy of the revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, whose Common Sense had turned America’s colonial rebellion into a democratic revolution and whose Crisis Papers sustained his fellow citizens’ energies through the darkest days of the struggle, they dubbed themselves Florida Veterans for Common Sense – an act reminiscent of those who on their return from southeast Asia in the late 1960s formed Vietnam Veterans Against the War and called themselves the “winter soldiers”.

To the now middle-aged guys of FLVCS, Paine’s words – most notably, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country, but he that stands it now…’ – remained powerful and moving, for, as they saw it, Americans once again faced a major crisis, indeed, an ever-intensifying one that threatened to seriously undermine American democratic life. And given all that has happened since then – torture, domestic spying, no WMDs, and so on – we know that they were sadly prescient.

Though angered by the Bush administration’s appropriations of God, flag and the concept of freedom, the men of FLVCS have never spouted self-hating, anti-American rhetoric, for they do not see Bush and his cronies as representing what the nation is really about. In fact, as their statement of principles declares, they are determined to redeem the best of American history and ideals: “As veterans, we support the founding principles of the United States…liberty, equality, human rights and democracy.”

Furthermore, in contrast to the conservatives who underwrote Bush’s two campaigns, they neither hate government nor profess any desire to run down public services. To the contrary, their FLVCS manifesto calls upon the government “to provide returning veterans the best medical and psychological treatment.” And while they call for a “timely withdrawal of American troops from Iraq,” they do not push pacifism or demand a reduction in defence spending. As they put it, the United States needs “a strong military designed to protect citizens against 21st century threats both foreign and domestic”. But as they also make clear, which distinguishes them from their antagonists: “As veterans, we support the ethical and humane treatment of prisoners and oppose all torture.”

More than a collection of petition-signers, the founding members of FLVCS – joined by younger veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq – have in the course of the past four and a half years staged educational events, raised money for disabled veterans, marched against the war, lobbied for enhanced veterans benefits, and campaigned for anti-war candidates.

They have witnessed further defeats. In 2004 they did what they could to counter the swift-boaters’ assaults on John Kerry’s character. And in 2006 their candidate in the race for Florida’s 13th congressional district was defeated in an election reminiscent of 2000. But they could take solace in the fact that Harris lost her 2006 race for Senate and that Americans have evidently come to see what the Bush administration is really about.

This Memorial Day, I will join in remembering and honouring those who served the nation and died doing so. But I will also salute and toast the guys of Florida Veterans for Common Sense. Fortunately, they came back alive and – in a fashion that would make Paine proud, I’m sure – they never forgot what America was supposed to be about.

Harvey Kaye is a professor of social change and development at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay and the author of “Thomas Paine and the Promise of America.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Memorial Day Message: Remember the dead, fight for the living

President Bush Signs $1.8 Billion in New Emergency Spending for VA in Iraq War Funding Bill

To View the Entire Report, please go to this link: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/files/VFCS/$1.8BillionIraqWarSummary5-25-07.pdf

For immediate release:  Thursday, May 24, 2007

Summary of the Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation

The House and Senate are poised to approve legislation providing $119.995 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for improving the health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers.  [Note: only medical-related appropriations are listed here.]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of Defense Health Programs:  $3 billion

Provides an additional $1.9 billion above the request, including:
  * $410 million in uncovered and unbudgeted fees
  * $500 million to eliminate “efficiency wedge” savings and reinvest in military hospitals
  * $20 million to repair facilities at Walter Reed
  * $900 million for brain trauma injury (BTI) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment and research
  * Allows for transfer of excess PTSD and BTI treatment funds to the Veterans Administration for soldiers transitioning from the military

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Department of Veterans Affairs: $1.78 billion

The funding included in the Supplemental is specifically targeted toward treatment for OEF/OIF veterans, reducing the backlog of benefits claims, and ensuring that facilities are maintained at the highest level.  The funding includes the following:

Medical Services:  $466.7 million

  * $30 million for at least one new Level I polytrauma center – this funding should be sufficient to allow the VA to establish at least one new Level I comprehensive polytrauma center. 
  * $9.4 million in operations costs associated with the establishment of new polytrauma residential transitional rehabilitation programs.  Severely injured veterans may require extensive periods of rehabilitation to successfully integrate back into the community.  Traumatic Brain Injury, particularly in combination with PTSD and other stress reactions and mental health problems, is among the conditions that require extensive rehabilitation including transitional programming.  The funding will allow the VA to establish four additional transitional programs. 
  * $10 million for additional transition caseworkers – The Secretary has announced his intention to hire 100 new transition caseworkers, to work with separating veterans and their families.  The additional funding would be sufficient for this new initiative.
  * $20 million for Vet Centers/Readjustment Counseling – Vet Centers and the readjustment counseling provided by them remain one of the top rated VA programs among veterans.  These “storefront” centers have seen increasing usage from OEF/OIF veterans leading to a strain and waiting lists at many of the sites.  The additional funds would give the VA the ability to open new Vet Centers and hire additional staffing for existing centers. 
  * $10 million for blind rehabilitation programs –  Vision problems are likely to accompany traumatic brain injuries.  This and the aging veteran population have led to a need for more blind rehabilitative services.  The additional funds will allow the VA to begin creating capacity to better serve today’s vision impaired veterans. 
  * $100 million for enhancements to mental health services – Mental health problems along with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are likely to rise dramatically due to extended and repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The additional funds are provided to allow the VA to begin to build capacity, including additional staffing, throughout the VHA. 
  * $20 million for substance abuse treatment programs – Over the past 3 fiscal years the VA’s budget has been flat for substance abuse treatment programs.  The additional funding could be utilized by the VA to increase in-patient and out-patient services for substance abuse programs.
  * $8 million for polytrauma clinic support teams – There are currently 76 polytrauma clinic support teams in the VA.  These local teams of providers with rehabilitation expertise deliver follow-up services in consultation with regional and network specialists.  The additional funding would provide 10 more teams. 
  * $5.4 million for polytrauma points of contacts – Smaller VHA facilities that do not have polytrauma services have points of contact who refer polytrauma patients to a facility capable of providing the level of service required.  This funding would allow the VA to hire an additional 52 points of contact for smaller VHA facilities.
  * $25 million for prosthetics.
  * $228.982 million in additional funds to treat OEF/OIF veterans – the VA modeling has consistently underestimated the number of OEF/OIF veterans seen by the VHA.  In FY 2007, the VA underestimated the number of OEF/OIF veterans by 100,000 patients (almost 100{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}).  The additional funding would provide the VA the ability to utilize additional funding without impacting services for other VA patients.

Medical Administration:   $250 million

Medical Facilities:  $595 million

  * This recommendation includes $45 million for upgrades to the polytrauma network system.  Additionally, the VA has identified $550 million in needed non-recurring maintenance not budgeted for in FY 2007 and FY 2008. 
  * Medical and Prosthetic Research:    $32.5 million
  * This funding is for research associated with returning Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans and deployment health. 
  * General Operating Expenses:  $83.2 million
  * This funding includes $20 million for disability medical examinations; $60.75 million for expenses related to hiring and training additional disability claims processors; $1.25 million for digitization of military service records; and $1.2 million for the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct a review of management structures, processes and coordination in relation to transition from active duty to veteran status.
  * Information Technology   $35.1 million
  * This funding includes $20 million for information technology support and improvements for processing of OEF/OIF veterans benefits claims, including making electronic DoD medical records available for claims processing and enabling electronic benefits applications by veterans, and $15.1 million for remedial actions needed to provide services to veterans whose personal information is at risk due to a recent data breach.

Construction, Minor Projects:   $326 million

This funding includes $290 million in minor construction for VA-identified needs that were not requested in FY 2007 or FY 2008.  Additionally, funding provides up to $36 million for construction needs associated with the establishment of additional polytrauma residential transitional rehabilitation programs.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on President Bush Signs $1.8 Billion in New Emergency Spending for VA in Iraq War Funding Bill

Editorial Column – Our Entire Government Has Failed Us on Iraq War

May 24, 2007 – A Special Comment about the Democrats’ deal with President Bush to continue financing this unspeakable war in Iraq—and to do so on his terms:

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”.

The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans.

The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.

Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

And this President!

How shameful it would be to watch an adult… hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.

But how horrifying it is… to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm’s way, are bled white.

You lead this country, sir?

You claim to defend it?

And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness—your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs—you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.

How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.

Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally—first, last and always—that the troops would not suffer.

A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a ‘second surge,’ but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe—even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.

Well, any true President would have done that, Sir.

You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

Not that these Democrats, who had this country’s support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.

“We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame,” Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. “My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…”

That’s what this is for the Democrats, isn’t it?

Their “Neville Chamberlain moment” before the Second World War.

All that’s missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee “peace in our time,” but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.

The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.

Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.

And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening?

See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?

Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.

Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us.

They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.

Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us.

They have behaved venomously and without dignity—of course.

That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.
We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.

With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.

They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.

Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process—indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice—has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.

The electorate figured this out, six months ago.

The President and the Republicans have not—doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there—and  permanently.

Because, on the subject of Iraq…

The people have been ahead of the media….

Ahead of the government…

Ahead of the politicians…

For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.

Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.

Mr. Bush has failed.

Mr. Warner has failed.

Mr. Reid has failed.

So.

Who among us will stop this war—this War of Lies?

To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.

To all the others—presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial Column – Our Entire Government Has Failed Us on Iraq War