Editorial Column: Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms.  And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all. 

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy – but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government – the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens’ ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors – we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don’t learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of “homeland” security – remember who else was keen on the word “homeland” – didn’t raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable – as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a “war footing”; we were in a “global war” against a “global caliphate” intending to “wipe out civilisation”. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space – the globe itself is the battlefield. “This time,” Fein says, “there will be no defined end.”

Creating a terrifying threat – hydra-like, secretive, evil – is an old trick. It can, like Hitler’s invocation of a communist threat to the nation’s security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the “global conspiracy of world Jewry”, on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain – which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks – than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal “outer space”) – where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, “enemies of the people” or “criminals”. Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders – opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists – are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA “black site” prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can’t investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don’t generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: “First they came for the Jews.” Most Americans don’t understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People’s Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a “fascist shift” want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America’s security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode – but the administration’s endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for “public order” on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station “to restore public order”.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini’s Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China – in every closed society – secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens’ phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about “national security”; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens’ groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four – you infiltrate and harass citizens’ groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 “suspicious incidents”. The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track “potential terrorist threats” as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as “terrorism”. So the definition of “terrorist” slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a “list” of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America’s Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela’s government – after Venezuela’s president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, “because I was on the Terrorist Watch list”.

“Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that,” asked the airline employee.

“I explained,” said Murphy, “that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.”

“That’ll do it,” the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of “enemy of the people” tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can’t get off.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don’t toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile’s Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not “coordinate”, in Goebbels’ term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically “coordinate” early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that “waterboarding is torture” was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were “coordinated” too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s – all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened “critical infrastructure” when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy – a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC’s Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN’s Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won’t have a shutdown of news in modern America – it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it’s not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can’t tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as “treason” and criticism as “espionage’. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of “spy” and “traitor”. When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times’ leaking of classified information “disgraceful”, while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the “treason” drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and “beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death”, according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin’s Soviet Union, dissidents were “enemies of the people”. National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy “November traitors”.

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year – when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – the president has the power to call any US citizen an “enemy combatant”. He has the power to define what “enemy combatant” means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define “enemy combatant” any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin’s gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo’s, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually – for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. “Enemy combatant” is a status offence – it is not even something you have to have done. “We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model – you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we’re going to hold you,” says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests – usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn’t real dissent. There just isn’t freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency – which the president now has enhanced powers to declare – he can send Michigan’s militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state’s governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears’s meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole’s baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: “A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night … Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any ‘other condition’.”

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act – which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch’s soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias’ power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini’s march on Rome or Hitler’s roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere – while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: “dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster.”

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are “at war” in a “long war” – a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president – without US citizens realising it yet – the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions – and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the “what ifs”.

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack – say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani – because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us – staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody’s help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the “what ifs”. For if we keep going down this road, the “end of America” could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before – and this is the way it is now.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny,” wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

Naomi Wolf’s The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot will be published by Chelsea Green in September.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Editorial Column: Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps

Mental Health Centers for War Troops Proposed

Hundreds of thousands of service members nationwide, including thousands stationed in San Diego County, could benefit from medical centers dedicated to treating war-spawned mental illness and brain injuries, two U.S. senators said yesterday in introducing a bill to create such facilities.

The Pentagon has no specialized centers to lead research on those conditions, develop treatment standards for them or train health professionals nationwide on how to administer the most up-to-date care.

“Our troops are risking their lives for this country, and we owe them nothing less than the best care in return,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who is co-sponsoring the legislation with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

If passed into law, “The Mental Health Care for Our Wounded Warriors Act of 2007” would direct the Pentagon to establish at least two centers. They would likely be part of existing military hospitals in regions with many service members. Those facilities might include the San Diego Naval Medical Center, also known as Balboa naval hospital.

The Pentagon would have up to six months from the legislation’s enactment to designate the sites, tell Congress how much money they need and specify other details for the system.

The bill also would require Pentagon officials to inform Congress about what they’re doing to reduce a shortage of mental-health specialists at military hospitals. In recent months, various surveys have documented the understaffing and highlighted widespread burnout among remaining psychologists, psychiatrists and other related workers.

“I think the biggest point of this legislation is the acknowledgment that ‘Houston, we have a problem.’ The Defense Department . . . underestimated both the physical and mental trauma caused by this war,” said John Pike, director of the military think tank GlobalSecurity.org.

About 1.5 million service members have fought in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Numerous studies have estimated that 17 percent to 33 percent of them suffer mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and that one in 10 have experienced a traumatic brain injury. Both conditions can require years of expensive and highly specialized treatment.

Pike gave the bill a “pretty good chance” of becoming law.

“I consider this the down payment on what it is eventually going to cost to take care of injured veterans,” he said.

Joe Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, praised Boxer and Lieberman for trying to improve care for troops while they’re still on active duty.

“The centers would be a way to develop experts,” said Violante, who estimated that it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to start such facilities. “Eventually, you hope they will address issues at places like Camp Pendleton and Fort Bragg.”

Camp Pendleton’s units have gone through two major rounds of deployment to Iraq, and some of them have served four tours of war duty in recent years. Their most recent wave, which largely ended last month, involved more than 25,000 Marines and sailors.

Once service members leave the military, they usually receive two years of free care from the Veterans Affairs system. The concept of creating specialized centers for certain medical conditions also has been discussed in the VA system.

There’s a great need to not only train more people in the best ways to treat mental disorders such as PTSD, but also for research to find better therapies, said Jeffrey L. Matloff, former program director of the PTSD team at the San Diego VA Healthcare System in La Jolla.

“The ideal is to have education and dissemination of information so that we’re all up to speed on the latest interventions and techniques, so people at Balboa naval hospital are practicing the same state-of-the-art care” as clinicians at the VA hospital, he said.

Staff writer Cheryl Clark contributed to this report.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Mental Health Centers for War Troops Proposed

Jessica Lynch Tells Congress What Really Happened to Her

April 24, 2007 – Jessica Lynch became a national hero in 2003 after she was dramatically rescued by a team of Special Ops soldiers from an Iraqi hospital where she was believed to be a prisoner of war. Her story was compelling not only because she was a 19-year-old supply-unit clerk who had stumbled into an attack during convoy travel with her unit, but because she was portrayed by military authorities as having valiantly fought back against her attackers even as her unit was surrounded and her comrades were killed and injured. The legend quickly unraveled, however, after Lynch returned to the States, recuperated from her substantial injuries (broken arm and leg bones, damage to her back and kidneys, and a six-inch laceration to her head) and began to speak out about what had really happened. Today, Lynch testified before a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing probing the source of misleading information about Lynch and about the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan. NEWSWEEK’s Julie Scelfo spoke with Lynch, who turns 24 on April 26, about her experiences. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you decide to testify?
Jessica Lynch: Mainly it was about me just getting out the truth. I’ve spent the past four years trying to tell everybody the real truth, and not the stories they put together. They were false, ya know?

What was the greatest misinformation about you?
The whole Rambo story, that I went down fighting. It just wasn’t the truth.

So what really happened?
I didn’t even get a shot off. My weapon had jammed. And I didn’t even get to fire. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the back of our [Humvee], which made Lori [Piestewa], my friend, lose control of the vehicle, and we slammed into the back of another truck in our unit.

Who is to blame for spreading the misinformation?
Well, I think really the military and the media. The military, for not setting the record straight and the media for spreading it, and not seeking the true facts. They just ran with it instead of waiting until the facts were straightened out.

What do you hope Congress achieves with today’s hearing?
I hope it [helps] the Tillman family get the accurate information that they deserve. They need to know what happened to their son and why they were lied to.

Do you feel like this is a pattern, misinformation from the military?
Well, it kind of seems like that’s the way it’s been happening. I hope they can learn from mistakes and correct this and not let other family members and soldiers have to deal with the things that my family and I went through.

What was the hardest part of having misinformation spread?
Knowing that it wasn’t the truth. I just, I had to get [the truth] out there. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself knowing that’s not exactly how it happened.

You said during your testimony you weren’t there for political reasons.  But do you have an opinion about how the administration used your story and Tillman’s story for political gain?
I don’t know because there’s no way of knowing why this stuff was even created in the first place. Only the people who created it would have the answers.

So how is your recovery going?
I still have a lot of problems, a lot of injuries. I will probably never heal or be the same again. But I’m OK with it, and I’ve learned to cope with it in my own way.

You said in your testimony that Iraqi nurses actually tried to return you once to the Americans. What happened?
We were fired upon, and [the] driver of the ambulance had to turn around and brought me back to the hospital.

So the Iraqis were trying to return you?
Yeah, hopefully that’s what they were doing. That’s what I was told they were doing. We were headed to a checkpoint and we were fired upon.

If the Iraqis wanted to give you back, why did the military stage a big rescue? Couldn’t they just knock on the hospital door?
I don’t know. I hope that they had my interests in mind, and were wanting to get me out of there.

Do you feel like you were exploited by the military?
No, I don’t. I felt sort of like that in the beginning, yes. But now, four years later, I don’t.

During today’s testimony Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, says he feels his brother’s death was “exploited” for political reasons.
I agree, they did that in a way. Pat Tillman’s situation was similar to mine but completely different. He didn’t have the opportunity to come home and tell the truth and set the record straight like I did.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Jessica Lynch Tells Congress What Really Happened to Her

Grisly Problem, Grateful Iraqis, a Grim Outlook

BAGHDAD – The soldiers called him Bob, and for the past several weeks, until Tuesday morning, he was the biggest obstacle to the success of an important mission in a small but crucial corner of the Iraq war.

“We can’t get anybody to get Bob out. No one wants to do it,” Army Maj. Brent Cummings, executive officer of the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, said with worry one recent morning as Bob’s story began unfolding. Cummings was looking at an aerial photograph of an area in east Baghdad called Kamaliya, where there was an abandoned spaghetti factory with a hole in the courtyard, a hole in which some of his soldiers had discovered Bob.

Bob: It’s shorthand for “bobbin’ in the float,” Cummings explained.

Float: It’s shorthand for “two to three feet of raw sewage,” he further explained.

Bobbin’ in the float is shorthand, then, for yet another lesson in the comedy, absurdity and tragedy that is any moment in this war.

Bob was found as a result of the new strategy of trying to secure Baghdad by temporarily increasing the number of troops and moving them into neighborhood outposts. After the soldiers identified the spaghetti factory as the best place from which to secure poor, rough, dirty, insurgent-ridden Kamaliya, they began clearing the factory in order to move in.

One day, in one area, they found 16 rocket-propelled grenades, three antitank grenades, 11 hand grenades and 21 mortar shells. Another day, they found 14 more mortar shells. Another day, they found the makings of three roadside bombs. Another day, they found a square metal cover in the courtyard that they thought might be booby-trapped. Ever so carefully, they lifted it and found themselves peering down into the factory’s septic tank at Bob.

The body, floating, was in a billowing, once-white shirt. The toes were gone. The fingers were gone. The head, separated and floating next to the body, had a gunshot hole in the face.

‘A final resting place’
The body, it was quickly decided, would have to be removed before the 120 soldiers could move in. “It’s a morale issue. Who wants to live over a dead body?” Cummings said. “And part of it is a moral issue, too. I mean he was somebody’s son, and maybe husband, and for dignity’s sake, well, it cheapens us to leave him there. I mean even calling him Bob is disrespectful. I don’t know. It’s the world we live in.”

He paused.

“I’d like to put him in a final resting place,” he said, “as opposed to a final floating place.”

But how? That was the problem. No one wanted to touch Bob. Not the soldiers. Not the Iraqi police. No one.

Days passed. The need for the soldiers in Kamaliya increased. Bob floated on. One day the skull sank from view. Another day a local Iraqi speculated that there might be more bodies in the septic tank, that Bob might simply be the one on top.

Nothing’s easy

Finally, with no easy solution in sight, Cummings decided to go see Bob for himself.

How easy is anything in Iraq, such as a short drive to a spaghetti factory? A combat plan was drawn up, just in case. A convoy of five Humvees was assembled. Body armor was strapped on. Earplugs were pushed in. Protective eyeglasses were lowered into place. Off the convoy went, slowly, never exceeding 15 mph, because slow and steady is the best way to find a roadside bomb before it explodes, unless it is a bomb with a particular kind of trigger that is best defeated by flying pedal to metal. Yard by yard, decision by decision, the convoy advanced, past trash bags that might be hiding bombs, along dirt roads under which might be buried bombs, and now past something unseen that, just after the last Humvee in the convoy passed by, exploded.

No damage. No injuries. Just some noise and smoke in the air. The convoy kept going, now past a dead water buffalo, on its back, grossly swollen, one more thing in this part of Baghdad on the verge of exploding, and now the Humvees stopped against a high wall, on the other side of which was a yellowish building topped by a torn tin roof banging around in the wind.

“The spaghetti factory,” Cummings announced. Soon he and Capt. Jeff Jager, commander of the company that would be moving to the factory, were staring into the septic tank, and suddenly Cummings had an idea.

“Lye and bleach and sanitize and cover it up,” he said. “We bring our chaplain here, and we’ll say some words and mark it.”

Easy. Done.

Jager shook his head. “I think you gotta clean it out,” he said. “I mean we’re gonna have some heartache moving into a building that’s got a dead body in a sewage septic tank.”

“Yeah,” Cummings said, realizing Jager was right. “We want to do right.”

“Arabic culture, you know?” Jager said. “They bury their dead in 24 hours.”

“I mean someone has disgraced him as bad as you can possibly disgrace a human being,” Cummings said. “And there’s not a playbook that we can go to that says when you open it up: Here’s how you remove a body from a septic tank.”

“The one contractor I brought up here, he was willing to do everything here, but he wanted nothing to do with that,” Jager said. “I asked him how much it would take for him to get that out of there, and he said, ‘You couldn’t pay me enough.’ “

“The Army has systems for this — if it were our body,” Cummings said. “If it were a U.S. soldier, sure. We would be there in a heartbeat.”

“We could drop down there and get it out ourselves,” Jager said. “But–“

“But what soldier am I going to ask to go in there to do that?” Cummings said.

They continued to stare.

“Lye and bleach,” Cummings said again, back to that, and then he and Jager went on a tour of the rest of the factory as Jager explained that the factory had been abandoned three years ago, that the owner — a Sunni — was apparently murdered, that the owner’s brother told them by phone that he had tried to come to the factory four times from his home in west Baghdad and had been stopped and beaten each time, that “we know the militia has used this as a base of operations,” that there are “reports that they used this for torture and murder,” and that neighbors have told his soldiers about “the screams and the sounds of people being beaten.”

This is where the dining facility would be, he now told Cummings. This is where the soldiers would sleep.

They stepped outside the front gate, onto the street. Surrounded by soldiers and engineers, they walked down the street to plot a route for concrete blast walls that would be brought in by truck to encircle the factory. They turned a corner to keep plotting the route, and that was when Cummings saw a mud-brick hovel practically attached to the factory wall like a barnacle, and a shirtless man outside the shack who struggled to cover himself as the soldiers came through his gate.

Through an interpreter, Cummings began to explain why they were there, that U.S. soldiers would soon be moving into the spaghetti factory, that a wall was going to be built.

I will leave, the man interrupted, shaking.

“No,” Cummings said, asking the interpreter to explain again what he had said.

I will leave, the man said again, explaining that he and his family had come to this little bit of land because they had been uprooted, that they had been here two years, that they meant no harm, that they had nowhere else to go, and then, at last hearing the interpreter, he said, I don’t have to leave?

“No,” Cummings said.

I don’t have to leave? the man said again, and then, as his shaking subsided, and his rush of words slowed, his family emerged from the shack. Child after child. An old woman. More children. And finally, a young woman, very pregnant, who stood in the doorway, trying to push her dirty hair off her dirty face with her dirty hands as she looked at the soldiers, at first breathing nervously, then easing into a slight smile as she heard the man saying thank you for saving them from the terrorists, for enclosing them in a wall, for allowing them to stay.

“You’re welcome. And thank you for allowing us in,” Cummings said, and soon after that, with the gratitude of a living Iraqi as fixed in his mind now as the horror of one who had been tortured and killed, his visit to see Bob ended.

There is such decency in the country, he said, back in his office. That was why, more than ever, he wanted Bob removed and given some kind of proper burial. “I would hope someone would do the same for my body. And for any human being,” he said. “Otherwise, we’re not human.”

That was Monday.

And then came Tuesday, and a phone call in the morning from Jager, who had received a call from the factory owner’s brother, who had received a call from someone who lived near the factory.

Cummings hung up.

“The spaghetti factory has been blown up,” he said.

It was only a first report, he cautioned, but the report said that there were a dozen men, and they were armed, and they wore masks, and the explosion was huge.

“Gone.”

Throughout the day, there were attempts to verify this, but even in Iraq some days are harder than others. The wind was up, so much so that most helicopters were grounded, as was most aerial surveillance, other than a fighter jet, circling high, whose pilot reported that some of the factory appeared to have been destroyed.

How extensive was the damage?

As of Tuesday night, no one was able to say for sure.

What about the nervous man in the flimsy house?

Nothing.

And his dozen children?

Nothing.

And the pregnant woman who was able to finally manage a smile?

Nothing.

And the plan to move into Kamaliya? Would the factory still become the outpost?

“I hope so,” Cummings said.

And Bob?

Cummings shook his head. Bob, he said, was no longer the biggest obstacle.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Grisly Problem, Grateful Iraqis, a Grim Outlook

UN: Baghdad Security Operation Has Failed

Sectarian violence continued to claim the lives of a large number of Iraqi civilians in Sunni Arab and Shiite neighbourhoods of Iraq’s capital, despite the coalition’s new Baghdad security plan, the UN said today.

In its first human rights report since the security plan was launched on February 14 – and began increasing US and Iraqi troops levels in the capital – the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said civilian casualties in the daily violence between January and March remained high, concentrated in and around Baghdad.

American troops are facing increasing danger as they step up their presence in outposts and police stations in Baghdad and areas surrounding the city, as part of the security crackdown to which US President George Bush has committed an extra 30,000 troops.

Thousands of Iraqi soldiers are also being deployed in the streets of the capital in an attempt to pacify it.

“While government officials claimed an initial drop in the number of killings in the latter half of February following the launch of the Baghdad security plan, the number of reported casualties rose again in March,” the study said.

But UNAMI also said that for the first time since it began issuing quarterly reports on the human rights situation in Iraq, the new January 1-March 31 one did not contain overall mortality figures from Iraq’s Ministry of Health because it refused to release them.

“UNAMI emphasises again the utmost need for the Iraqi government to operate in a transparent manner, and does not accept the government’s suggestion that UNAMI used the (previous) mortality figures in an inappropriate fashion,” the report said.

The UN agency said that after the publication of its last human rights report about Iraq on January 16, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s office told UNAMI its mortality figures were exaggerated, “although they were in fact official figures compiled and provided by a government ministry”.

The new UNAMI report said that on March 1 Iraq’s Ministry of Interior announced that 1,646 civilians were killed in Iraq in February, most of them in Baghdad, but that “it is unclear on what basis these figures were compiled.”

UNAMI said that even though its current report’s evidence could not be numerically substantiated with government figures, it showed continued high levels of violence throughout the reporting period, including large scale indiscriminate killings and assassinations by insurgents, militias and other armed groups.

“In February and March, sectarian violence claimed the lives of large numbers of civilians, including women and children, in both Shia and Sunni neighbourhoods of Baghdad,” the report said.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on UN: Baghdad Security Operation Has Failed

Bush Orders Veterans Health Action Plan Implemented

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was ordering implementation of a government-wide “action plan” to improve health care and related services for U.S. troops and returning veterans.

The plan was developed by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson and members of the Interagency Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, Bush said in a statement released late on Tuesday by the White House.

“The brave men and women who have volunteered to protect and defend our country deserve to receive the highest level of support from our grateful nation,” the statement said.

“The Task Force has proposed specific recommendations to immediately begin addressing the problems and gaps in services that were identified across the veterans and military healthcare systems.

“These recommendations include directing the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a joint process for disability determination.”

Disability determinations are used to establish levels of disability for retirement and Veterans Affairs compensation.

“I commend the work of the Task Force, welcome its recommendations, and have directed Secretary Nicholson to work with all agencies involved … and to report back to me within 45 days on how these measures are being implemented.”

In March, President Bush apologized to wounded U.S. troops who endured dilapidated conditions and bureaucratic delays at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the flagship military hospital in Washington. The Army’s top civilian leader and other officials were ousted over the revelations.

There have also been questions about military mental health care. The General Accountability Office reported last year that just 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who showed signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder were referred by the Pentagon for mental health evaluations.

Nine U.S. senators asked the GAO this month to look into how the Defense Department treats troops returning from Iraq or Afghanistan with mental health problems.

“We have … heard of cases in which service members with PTSD are diagnosed as having ‘personality disorders’ that the Army considers ‘pre-existing,’ thus depriving otherwise eligible combat veterans of disability benefits and much-needed mental health care,” the Senators wrote in the GAO request.

(Additional reporting by Will Dunham)

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Bush Orders Veterans Health Action Plan Implemented

Fort Carson to Test Equipment to Gauge Brain Injuries

FORT CARSON – The Army, faced with thousands of cases of brain injury from the Iraq war, soon will begin testing brain scanning equipment in hopes of finding a more accurate way to identify hard-to-diagnose wounds, the commander of the post hospital said Tuesday.

The Army has not extensively used neuroimaging equipment to detect brain injuries in returning soldiers because not enough testing has been done to judge the technology’s effectiveness.

But Fort Carson soon will test a brain scan procedure that uses gamma rays along with radioisotopes, said Col. John Cho, commander of the Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson. The tests will be conducted on Fort Carson units returning from Iraq, he said.

The move comes as an interagency task force, headed by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson, released a report Monday saying injured soldiers and veterans will get more screenings for brain injury.

It also comes after a recent study at Fort Carson found that 18 percent of troops who had been to Iraq – 2,392 of 13,400 – suffered at least some brain damage from the blasts of improvised explosive devices.

Currently, doctors often must rely on questioning soldiers to determine if they’ve suffered brain damage. Cho said that isn’t good enough: Many injured show no symptoms, and some symptoms can mirror other conditions.

“How do you determine that someone has actually had a traumatic brain injury other than asking the soldier?” Cho said Monday.

Such verbal tests are subject to failure for many reasons: The soldier may not remember, may withhold information to avoid being discharged or may not yet feel the effects of injury.

Stephen Robinson, of Veterans for America, an organization that has accused the Army of discharging soldiers with brain damage while determining they have personality disorders, was pleased with the announcement.

“After two years of us complaining, they are going to do something,” Robinson said.

Lt. Col. Reed Smith, head of nuclear medicine at the Evans hospital, said his staff will receive a new scanning camera known as a SPECT (single photo emission computerized tomography) within two weeks.

Fort Carson will use soldiers who have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury to test the technology and rate its effectiveness, Cho said. Results will be delivered to an Army review board.

“We feel that we can move forward on behalf of the Army and for soldiers faster than other places,” Cho said. “Hopefully it will identify a marker that can help diagnose brain damage.”

“Obviously this is potentially a very positive thing. They are taking head injuries seriously. They are looking for a technology that will detect it,” said Dr. P. Stephen Macedo, a Washington, D.C.- based neurologist and former doctor with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Fort Carson to Test Equipment to Gauge Brain Injuries

U.S. Command Shortens Life of Long War as a Reference

WASHINGTON, April 23 — When the Bush administration has sought to explain its strategy for fighting terrorism, it has often said the United States is involved in a “long war” against Islamic extremists.

The phrase was coined by Gen. John P. Abizaid before he retired as head of the Central Command. It was intended to signal to the American public that the country was involved in a lengthy struggle that went well beyond the war in Iraq and was political as well as military.

It would be a test of wills against “Islamofascism,” as President Bush once put it. It would also be a historic challenge that spanned generations much like the battles against Communism.

As it turned out, however, the long war turned out to be surprisingly short-lived, at least at the command that pioneered the term. After taking over last month as the head of Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon quietly retired the phrase.

Military officials said that cultural advisers at the command had become concerned that the concept of a long war alienated Middle East audiences by suggesting that the United States would keep a large number of forces in the region indefinitely.

Admiral Fallon was also said to have been unenthusiastic about the phrase. He has stressed the importance of focusing on the difficult situation in Iraq and in achieving results as soon as possible. The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

The change “is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our Western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East,” Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for the command, said in an e-mail message. “The idea that we are going to be involved in a ‘Long War,’ at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful.”

“We remain committed to our friends and allies in the region and to countering Al Qaeda-inspired extremism where it manifests itself, but one of our goals is to lessen our presence over time. We didn’t feel that the term ‘Long War’ captured this nuance,” he added.

The command’s decision to drop the “long war” terminology was reported by The Tampa Tribune last week.

It is far from clear whether the White House and Pentagon will eventually follow Admiral Fallon’s lead. Mr. Bush used the phrase “long war” in his 2006 State of the Union address, and the White House drew on the terminology in announcing its strategy for combating terrorism. The phrase also featured prominently in a major review that the Pentagon did last year on military strategy, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has used it in Congressional testimony.

“This is a generational war, and we are going to be in it a long time,” said a White House official, who declined to be identified. “Nobody I have heard around here is talking about dropping it.”

An earlier push to change the way the Bush administration describes its strategy against terrorism was notably unsuccessful. In 2005, the Pentagon argued that the phrase “war on terror” should be replaced by “global struggle against violent extremism.” The shift was advocated by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was the defense secretary at the time, but it was overruled by Mr. Bush.

Some adjustments have been made. Administration officials seem to be using “Islamic fascism” and “jihadist” less regularly. The concern was that the terms might be potentially counterproductive because of their potential to further alienate Muslim audiences and that they were culturally insensitive. Mr. Bush, however, used both terms in a news conference in September.

“This is the beginning of a long struggle against an ideology that is real and profound,” Mr. Bush said in August. “It’s Islamofascism.”

For its part, the Central Command has also dispensed with another term, the “Salafist Extremist Network,” a reference to a particularly conservative strain of Islam, to describe Qaeda operatives.

Some allies welcome the change to play down “long war” and other Islamic terminology. British officials have long believed that the terminology was used by extremists as a recruiting tool. More recently, the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee put out a style guide banning the phrases “global war on terror” and “long war” from its committee reports.

Admiral Fallon does not appear to have come up with a catchy substitute for his predecessor’s turn of phrase.

“We continue to look for other options to characterize the scope of current operations,” said Colonel McLaughlin, the spokesman.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on U.S. Command Shortens Life of Long War as a Reference

Attack Kills Nine GIs in Iraq on April 23

BAGHDAD, April 24 — A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.

Suicide attackers rarely penetrate defenses that surround American troops, but a 10-week-old U.S. counterinsurgency strategy has placed them in outposts and police stations that some soldiers say have made them more vulnerable.

The military said the attack occurred near the capital of Diyala province, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, where U.S. soldiers have been engaged in increasingly fierce fighting with Sunni insurgents. A 10th soldier was killed Monday in a roadside bombing in the Diyala town of Muqdadiyah, the military said.

The truck bombing caused the highest number of U.S. fatalities in a ground attack since Aug. 3, 2005, when 14 Marines were killed after their amphibious assault vehicle hit a roadside bomb in Haditha.

Another car bombing Monday at an Iraqi police checkpoint near Diyala’s provincial council headquarters in Baqubah killed seven Iraqi policemen and wounded 13, the military said. The council was about to begin a meeting to discuss its 2007 budget, the U.S. military said.

As fighters have fled an ongoing security crackdown in Baghdad, attacks have risen against American and Iraqi forces in Diyala, where the U.S. military is sending more than 2,000 additional troops to battle the insurgency. U.S. soldiers have recently moved into at least seven small outposts in and around Baqubah.

Monday’s deaths bring to at least 56 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Diyala since November. The province has become the third-deadliest for Americans this year, following Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The attack also injured an Iraqi civilian, the U.S. military said.

Bombings in different parts of the country Monday killed at least another 44 people and wounded more than 100, police said. Twin car bombings killed at least 19 outside Ramadi, about 60 miles west of Baghdad, and a suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a restaurant near Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, killing seven and injuring 14.

A U.S. military effort to curb violence by building walls around some Baghdad neighborhoods generated continued controversy Monday, as residents protested barriers now surrounding a Sunni enclave and Iraq’s government pledged to find alternatives to the strategy.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, speaking at a Baghdad news conference, said the United States would “respect the wishes of the government” but stopped short of saying the walls would come down. The city’s top Iraqi military spokesman, meanwhile, insisted they would not.

“We will continue to construct the security barriers in the Adhamiyah neighborhood,” Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said at a news conference, referring to the controversial new wall bordering a district of Baghdad that U.S. military officers say is a Sunni insurgent stronghold. “Setting up barriers is one thing, and building barriers is another. These are movable barriers that can be removed.”

The Adhamiyah wall is part of a U.S. military plan to cordon off at least 10 of the city’s most violent neighborhoods in an effort to limit the movement of militants. In some of the sealed-off areas, which U.S. military officers refer to as “gated communities,” Iraqi and American soldiers will issue badges to residents or use biometric devices to record their fingerprints and eye patterns, military officials said.

U.S. military officials say the walls are meant to protect, not divide, and were designed by both American and Iraqi commanders in the field.

Debate over walling off neighborhoods began last week, when the U.S. military issued a press release about the construction of a three-mile-long, 12-foot-high wall separating Adhamiyah from surrounding Shiite neighborhoods. The partition — dubbed “The Great Wall of Adhamiyah” by soldiers — was intended to curb sectarian violence in the area, the statement said.

The barrier quickly drew criticism from Adhamiyah residents, who said it would stoke sectarian tensions by separating them from Shiites and likened it to the barriers Israel has constructed around the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are much-maligned in the Arab world. Other critics joined the outcry, among them human rights activists and representatives of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of whom told reporters in Najaf that the walls amounted to a “siege of the city.”

On Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told reporters in Cairo that he had ordered a halt to construction of the walls. Maliki was in Egypt for a meeting with Arab leaders. In an interview on the al-Arabiya television network Monday, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh appeared to back away from Maliki’s demand, saying only that the government was examining other measures for securing Adhamiyah. He declined to discuss possible alternatives, citing security concerns.

The walls have “political and psychological dimensions,” Dabbagh said, speaking to the network from Cairo. “It might solve a security crisis. But it has side effects just like medicine. Medicine has side effects that sometimes can be more harmful than the pain itself.”

In Adhamiyah, hundreds of residents protested, shouting and carrying banners that called the barricades a “big prison.”

“It is not a solution to turn the city into cantons,” one elderly man told television reporters.

Dawood al-Azami, deputy director of the Adhamiyah local council, said 90 percent of respondents to a survey distributed in the neighborhood on Sunday were strongly opposed to the wall, the Associated Press reported.

U.S. military officials say many residents of the city’s newly walled-off neighborhoods are pleased with the barriers. Mohammad al-Kabi is one.

Kabi, a building contractor who lives about 500 yards from the Adhamiyah wall, said he saw 20 trailers rumble into the area Sunday night, carrying tall blast barriers to add to the partition. He said he welcomed their arrival.

Checkpoints and road closures already have severed his ties to friends and business partners on the other side of wall, he said. There used to be daily clashes on his street. Now, with the wall going up, he said he feels more protected.

“There are no other options,” said Kabi, a Shiite Muslim. “It has reduced the violence. The snipers are not shooting at us anymore.”

Correspondents Sudarsan Raghavan and Joshua Partlow in Baghdad, and staff writers Josh White and Thomas E. Ricks in Washington contributed to this report.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Attack Kills Nine GIs in Iraq on April 23

Editorial Column: Bush Administration’s Hacks at VA and DoD Still Need to Go

Beyond Walter Reed: the DOD’s Other Healthcare Scandal

The governmental and media response to the Walter Reed scandal scratches only the most visible layer of the larger crisis in the US military’s healthcare system. The fact remains that the majority of servicemembers — whose injuries in the course of duty do not necessitate being airlifted into Reed — face substantial barriers to receiving any kind of care at all.

As I reported in a series of articles on Raw Story this past October, servicemembers with mental disorders are treated particularly badly. As the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan intensifies and military recruiters continue falling short of their quotas, the problem grows. More troops are exposed to ever-worsening combat conditions for increasingly longer terms of duty. And when they return, these troops face systematic barriers to proper diagnosis and treatment, starting with a post-deployment process littered with disincentives to disclose any kind of problem whatsoever.

For example, these same troops that have served two and three times longer than they originally intended are warned, while they are at the post-deployment center awaiting their release, that anyone reporting any kind of potential physical or mental disorder will be held indefinitely “for a full evaluation” while their buddies go home to their friends and families. And it’s common knowledge that a mark like that on their military record could end all hopes of working for the police force, the fire department, or any other kind of security-related job.

Of the mere 5{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of troops still desperate enough to vault these hurdles and acknowledge potential symptoms of post-traumatic stress (PTSD), 78{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} are denied further mental health evaluation after being eyeballed by… just about anyone. As Paul Reickhoff, Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and an Iraq veteran explained, “The form went to me and I passed it up to my commander. Essentially, you’re asking a group of people who have been in exactly the same situation, and who have no mental health training or background, to evaluate other people.”

A Veteran’s Administration report released this past August hints at the consequences of failing to diagnose and treat troops at the post-deployment stage: one-third of the nearly two million vets from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are seeking treatment from VA facilities. A full 35{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} received a diagnosis of a possible mental disorder. And they are waiting endlessly for treatment and compensation — in part because they didn’t report symptoms when they were supposed to, at the post-deployment center.

Of course, this isn’t the way it’s supposed to be. For years now the military has bristled at any suggestion that its healthcare system may be less than ideal. Even when it got busted by the General Accounting Office in 2003 for not enforcing a 1997 law that mandated pre-and post-deployment screenings for all servicemembers. Or last May, when another GAO report queried the military’s low rate of referrals: it also questioned DOD’s failure to require their providers to document why they had or had not granted servicemembers who showed potential symptoms of PTSD access to a professional mental health evaluation.

For all the committees and news accounts the Walter Reed scandal has spawned, there’s no sign so far of substantial infrastructural or ideological change at the DOD. It can wave the head of former Army Secretary Francis Harvey around on a pole all it likes. Ditto for Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman and Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the two previous commanders at Walter Reed. What does it matter when there’s a limitless supply of scoundrels to run the show — the kind of guys we’ve come to expect from this administration. Middle managers who hold down costs and minimize damages.

Take Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director of Force Health Protection and Readiness at DOD. He won Keith Olberman’s “Worst Person in the World” award earlier this year for cooking the DOD’s books to lower the statistics on the number of injured American service personnel. (By limiting the number only to those war casualties who required air transport out, he dropped the total from 47,657 to 31,493.) He’s still there.

Or Michael J. Kussman, the acting undersecretary for health and the top doctor at the VA. He responded to last August’s VA report by insisting that the number of troops reporting symptoms of stress probably represented a “gross overestimation” of those actually suffering from mental health disorders. He’s still there, despite acknowledging in hearings that he’s known about the problems at Walter Reed since 2004.

At least we’re finally rid of William Winkenwerder, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs who will be replaced in what the White House is spinning as a “previously scheduled departure from his job.” He’s the guy who swore, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, that ” Walter Reed’s problems did not result from lack of financing.” (In 2003 he testified that all deploying and redeploying troops were receiving individual health assessments.)

Yes, the Walter Reed scandal is long overdue. But it’s vital that government officials and media alike recognize that more of the administration’s hacks still need to go, and that for many troops the issue is access to any kind of care at all.

Nancy Goldstein lives and writes in New York City.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial Column: Bush Administration’s Hacks at VA and DoD Still Need to Go