UN Human Rights Body to Scrutinise U.S. Abuses

Posted on September 21, 2005 by Team VCS

The U.N. Human Rights Committee, scheduled to meet in Geneva next month, has written to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) calling for any available evidence of human rights abuses by the United States — particularly in the aftermath of its global war on terrorism.

The 18-member committee, comprising of independent human rights experts, will take up “issues of specific concerns relating to the effect of measures taken (by the administration of President George W. Bush) in the fight against terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001,” the day the United States was subject to terrorist attacks.

The primary focus will be “on the implications of the USA Patriot Act on nationals and non-nationals, as well as problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq and other places of detention outside the USA.”

The U.S. Congress adopted the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 in order to provide “appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.”

But virtually all human rights organisations, both domestic and international, have criticised the Act as seriously threatening civil liberties and freedoms in the United States.

“The USA Patriot Act was destined to foster abuses, as it weakened the system of checks and balances on law enforcement while setting aside due process safeguards under the law,” says Jumana Musa, advocacy director at Amnesty International USA.

Alarmingly, Musa added, the Patriot Act has inspired a proliferation of copycat laws worldwide, prompting abuses that the United States has officially pledged to counter.

“The boast that the United States is now the world’s only superpower has a grim undertow in the area of human rights; no one can tell Washington what to do or not do, no matter how egregious its cruelties,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy.

“Most governments deserve to be censured by a human rights committee. The United States, far from being an exception, is among the most culpable — in particular because of its large-scale foreign policy efforts pursued under the rubric of a ‘war on terrorism’ over the last four years,” Solomon told IPS.

The rhetorical use of “human rights” as a political football has mired its transcendent importance in the muck of self-serving hypocrisies based on the tacit precept that might makes right, he added.

“The character of the Bush administration is such that the U.S. delegation to the United Nations will — in practice — indignantly refuse to recognise a single standard of human rights whenever such a standard would put the U.S. record in a negative light,” said Solomon, author of the recently-released book ‘War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.’

The U.S.-based Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute at the University of California in Berkeley has detailed some 180 alleged human rights violations by the United States, including 11 types of violations of individual rights and 19 types of violations of government duties.

These violations include enforcement of the Patriot Act, and also allegations of killings, torture, detentions and other “inhuman treatment” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the U.S. detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Last July, the Berkeley City Council submitted to the Human Rights Committee a report prepared by the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, titled “Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11”.

In June, four independent experts of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights expressed “deep regrets” that “the Government of the United States has still not invited us to visit those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Guantanamo Bay naval base”.

The Bush administration has also turned down a similar request from the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and a joint request by the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on torture and health.

“Such requests were based on information, from reliable sources, of serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, arbitrary detention, violations of their right to health and their due process rights,” the four experts said in a statement released in June.

They also said that many of the allegations have come to light through declassified government documents. “The purpose of the visit would be to examine objectively the allegations first-hand and ascertain whether international human rights standards that are applicable in these particular circumstances are being upheld with respect to those detained persons,” the experts added.

When the Human Rights Committee meets in Geneva from Oct. 17 to Nov. 3, it is expected to discuss the submissions made by the Bush administration. These submissions include Washington’s periodic reports on how it has helped enforce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The committee was established to specifically monitor the implementation of the Covenant and the Protocols to the Covenant in the territory of States parties. The committee convenes three times a year for sessions of three weeks’ duration.

Under article 40 of the Covenant, States parties must submit reports every five years on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights.

The United States will be appearing before the committee for the first time in the post-Sep. 11 period.

Although only members of the committee and representatives of the relevant state party may take part in the dialogue, NGOs are encouraged to submit written information or reports to the committee.

Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out that for a long time, officials in Washington have been dismissive of the human rights pretensions of regimes that clearly are human rights violators, while much of what Washington does to violate human rights is “coated with a veneer of righteousness”.

A multi-track monologue discourse from Washington — in tandem with tremendous economic, political, diplomatic and military power — can be bought to bear on the United Nations, he said.

“A superpower that is striving to remake the 60-year-old world body in its own image can hardly be expected to submit to institutional scrutiny of its actual human rights record. The self-designated role of Uncle Sam at the United Nations is to preach and teach without reflecting or learning,” he argued.

A harsh truth is that a pronounced form of jingoism is at the core of the Bush administrations approach to the United Nations, Solomon added.

“Human rights violations come in many shapes, styles and sizes. The United States, like many other countries, has a government well-practiced at dodging accountability and proclaiming its own virtues,” he said.

“But the U.S. record, as assessed by independent organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, is reprehensible,” Solomon noted.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on UN Human Rights Body to Scrutinise U.S. Abuses

Bishops suggest apology for war

Posted on September 21, 2005 by Team VCS

A report from a working group of bishops says the war was one of a “long litany of errors” relating to Iraq.

As the government is unlikely to offer an apology, a meeting of religious leaders would provide a “public act of institutional repentance”, it said.

It urges a “truth and reconciliation” meeting, but acknowledges that arranging it could be difficult.

The report, entitled Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11, was written by a working group of the Church of England’s House of Bishops.

It suggests the meeting would be an opportunity to apologise for the way the West has contributed to the situation in Iraq, including the war.

Collusion

The Church of England has criticised the war, saying it was not a “just war”.

But a dilemma now exists for those within the Church – to pull out of Iraq without a stable democracy in place would be irresponsible, but to stay suggests collusion with a “gravely mistaken” war, the bishops said.

But if collusion was a necessary evil, the report says, there needs to be a degree of public recognition of the West’s responsibility for the present situation.

“It might be possible for there to be a public gathering…at which Christian leaders meet with religious leaders of other, mainly Muslim, traditions, on the basis of truth and reconciliation, at which there would be a public recognition of at least some of the factors mentioned [in the report].”

US reasons

The report said errors in the West’s handling of Iraq included support of Saddam Hussein over many years as a strategic ally against Iran, a willingness to sell him weapons and the suffering caused to the Iraqi people by sanctions.

It also says the war appeared to be “as much for reasons of American national interest as it was for the well-being of the Iraqi people”.

The report said religious institutions had apologised for past injustices, including the Vatican’s remorse over Christians’ responsibility for the persecution of Jews.

“These indicate that it is possible for institutions to take responsibility for their corporate action in the past, not in order to make individual Christians today feel guilty, but as a mature, public act of institutional repentance,” the report states.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Bishops suggest apology for war

Due Process

Posted on September 20, 2005 by Team VCS

Jose Padilla is no angel. He had an extensive arrest record even before the Bush administration ordered him held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant.” But here is what the U.S. Constitution says about how the law must treat the non-angelic:

“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” No person.

Two courts have considered whether Padilla, who once lived in Lauderhill, can continue to be held without charges — without due process. After a trial court said no, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes. The latter decision should be appealed to and reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not only has the government not proved anything against Padilla, or even tried to, but it can’t even seem to make up its mind about what he’s supposedly guilty of. The military says, without proof, that he fought in Afghanistan as an al-Qaida operative and was plotting terrorism inside the United States.

What plots? Good question. The government first said he planned to detonate a radiological bomb in a U.S. city. Now it says only that he may have planned to use gas to destroy apartment buildings.

May have? That’s not exactly evidence, and it’s a far cry from justice.

Padilla is an American citizen. He has been detained for more than three years. If he is an enemy combatant bent on causing mayhem and destruction in the United States, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. But first he should be charged and convicted. That’s the American way.

National security is vital, of course, but do any of us want to live in a country where all it takes is an accusation from the government to lock someone up and throw away the key?

BOTTOM LINE: The treatment of Jose Padilla is unfair and of questionable legality. He should be charged or released.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Due Process

Roberts’ Rules Of War

Posted on September 20, 2005 by Team VCS

In the first few days of Judge John Roberts’ hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, most senators focused their questions on his views of privacy, precedent and free speech. So far, only Sen. Russ Feingold has asked Roberts about his views on national security and civil liberties. Because Roberts is the first Supreme Court nomination of the 21st century and the first after 9/11, it is important that this hearing examine Roberts’ views on the balance between national security and civil liberties.

A Chief Justice Roberts will guide the court’s decisions on cases that will test the Bush administration’s determination to emphasize the prevention of terrorism over both the rights of Americans and the rule of law.  If the recent past is any prologue, the Supreme Court could soon rule on the administration’s efforts to wordsmith its definition of torture; the rendition of suspected terrorists to countries that torture; the indefinite detention of American citizens; the Pentagon’s Guantanamo tribunals and various provisions of the Patriot Act.  

Yet neither the Senate nor the pundit class has paid much attention to Judge Roberts’ views on these issues.  This is surprising given that the D.C. Court of Appeals’ recent ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld .  The three-judge panel, which included Roberts, gave the administration a significant legal victory, ruling that a military commission could try a man who once allegedly served as Osama bin Laden’s driver.

Four days after the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Hamdan , President Bush nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Although there is no evidence that Judge Roberts’ thinking on terrorism-related issues tipped the balance in his favor, President Bush and his senior advisors surely must have noted Roberts’ role in handing the administration one of its most significant legal victories in its prosecution of the war on terror.

The deference shown to the administration in Hamdan makes it clear that a Chief Justice Roberts will take a very different approach to security questions than the justice he was initially to replace, Sandra Day O’Connor—who joined the majority in the enemy combatant cases decided over the past year. O’Connor sought to place checks on presidential power in a time of war. If Hamdan is any guide, Roberts will be much more deferential.

This debate over national security and civil liberties is only likely to intensify, both on and off the bench.  The Supreme Court will not only have to balance the relationship between the three branches of U.S. government, but will also have to consider the scope of U.S. obligations under a number of treaties to which it is a party, including the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture.

These are critical issues for the country with real-world consequences. The court’s rulings on the Geneva Conventions, for example, will have an impact not only on those now detained by the U.S. government, but also on American soldiers who someday may be prisoners of war.

The legal debate over the administration’s (and Congress’) response to 9/11 has just begun.  Given its uncertain duration, questions surrounding the war on terror may come to dominate even the decades-long tenure of a Justice Roberts.  In fact, no other issues—not even those surrounding the right to privacy—are as likely to vex the court as much.

And unlike abortion or other contentious issues, there is little or no paper trail to review. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be wise to seek Judge Roberts’ views. Most importantly, perhaps, senators should ask Judge Roberts why he believes that the courts should be so deferential to the president in his role as commander in chief in a time a war.  Judge Roberts’ answers should be central to the Senate’s review of his nomination, and ultimately its decision on his suitability.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Roberts’ Rules Of War

Unraveling of the U.S. Military

Posted on September 19, 2005 by Team VCS

In a recent speech at Fort Bragg, a major U.S. military base, president Bush declared, “There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.” It seems fewer and fewer young Americans and their parents agree with him. The U.S. military is finding it increasingly difficult to sustain itself. This is despite what at first sight should be fruitful conditions for military recruitment: the events of September 11 and the fears about terrorism; the argument by the Bush administration that the global war on terrorism must be fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and other such faraway places, or it will end up having to be fought at home; and America’s ongoing wars that bring to the screens daily stories of heroic “warriors” liberating and defending the innocent.

Troop Shortages

Newspapers describe the U.S. army as “facing one of the greatest recruiting challenges in its history.” The U.S. military is deeply worried. General Barry McCaffrey, now a professor at the West Point, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is in a “race against time” in Iraq because of the strains on the military–the military is “starting to unravel.” He argues that, “The U.S. army and the Marines are too under-manned and under-resourced to sustain this security policy beyond next fall.” The consequences are great. For McCaffrey the U.S. military in Iraq is “the crown jewel of our national security guarantee to the American people in the war on terror.” This threatens the future of the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as McCaffrey puts it, “Failure would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and economic interests for the next 20 years.”

Sending in more troops, the American solution year after year in the Vietnam War, does not seem to be an option. President Bush has said that he would send more troops to Iraq if the military commanders in the field asked for them. He claims that they have not done so. But others suggest a more serious obstacle. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Minority Leader, has said that U.S. military commanders in Iraq have told him that they need more troops but they know none are available. Reed has said, “The conclusion I reach is that they know the soldiers aren’t there, so why ask for something you know doesn’t exist?”

A recent study by the RAND Corporation, a military think-tank, Stretched Thin: Army Forces for Sustained Operations found that the troop shortage in the army is so severe that it calls into question the Pentagon’s policy of being able to fight two major regional wars at the same time while also having sufficient soldiers for the war on terrorism and providing security in America. A recent meeting of the National Governors’ Association, which brings together the governors of the states, registered the governors’ concern that deployment of National Guard soldiers in Iraq was leaving their states unable to deal with possible natural disasters and other emergencies, with one governor exclaiming that “we don’t have personnel–whether it is full time or part time–to take care of all the needs and concerns of Americans.”

Recruitment Problems

Little of this seems to resonate with the public. So far this year, the U.S. army is reported to be 40{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} short of its recruitment target. The army has failed to meet its monthly recruiting goals in each of the preceding four months. In mid-July, the U.S. military reported that the Army National Guard, which makes up more than one-third of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, had missed its recruiting goal for the ninth straight month. This was an understatement of the larger trend. The Army National Guard has apparently missed its recruiting targets for at least 17 of the last 18 months.

U.S. army chief of staff General Peter Schoomaker told the Senate, “We’ve got enormous challenges” when it comes to recruitment of new soldiers. The army’s goal of 80,000 new recruits for this year “is at serious risk,” and next year “may be the toughest recruiting environment ever.” These recruiting problems, he believes, are likely to stretch “well into the future.”

These problems are despite the enormous incentives now being offered to join the military. There is a joining bonus of $90,000 paid over three years, of which $20,000 is in cash and $70,000 in benefits, along with a canceling of the loans many a young American must take to afford to go to college. There are reports also that people almost 40 years old are now eligible to join the military, and that the physical and intellectual standards for recruits have been lowered.

The fall in recruitment is strongest in the African-American community (12{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the U.S. population) and among women. African-Americans made up almost a quarter of army recruits in 2000, now their numbers have fallen to less than 14{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}. The number of women army recruits has dropped from 22{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} in 2000 to about 17{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}. Women make up about 15{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the military in total.

The Military Path to Citizenship

About 7{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the U.S. military are not citizens. There are about 30,000 foreign soldiers in the U.S. military from more than 100 countries; more than a third are Hispanic. To encourage recruitment, in 2002 the Bush administration made it easier for foreign-born U.S. troops to become naturalized citizens. Now, any legal resident who joins the military can immediately petition for citizenship rather than wait the five years required for civilians to start this process. They do not even have to pay the several hundred dollar fee for this process. As an added incentive, if a foreign-born soldier who is a U.S. citizen dies in the line of duty, the foreign-born members of his or her family can now seek citizenship, even if they are not legal residents. It is also possible for soldiers to be made citizens after they have died in service and for their families to then become eligible for citizenship.

Despite all this, the numbers of non-citizens joining the military is falling fast. The number has fallen by 20{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} since 2001. It is not slowing down, as much of the decline came last year.

It is not just those would be foot soldiers who are staying away. Those with the most to defend are less willing to do so. Army’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, which trains and commissions more than 60{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the new army officers each year, has been facing similar problems. It now has the fewest participants in nearly a decade, with recruitment having fallen by more than 16{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} over the past two years. In a recent article in Harpers, Lewis Lapham pointed out that there is a longer term process at work here, noting that almost half of the 1956 graduating class from Princeton University went into the military (400 out of a total of 900 students), and form the class of 2004, there were only nine students who joined, out of a class of 1,100.

The children of America’s elite see no future for themselves in the military. And there are some soldiers who see this. The story is told of a U.S. Marine who returned to California after a tour of duty in Iraq and was invited to speak at a “gated community” in Malibu, as a war hero. He told his audience “I am not a hero… Guys like me are just a necessary part of things. To maintain this way of life in a fine community like this, you need psychos like us to go and drop a bomb on somebody’s house.”

In its efforts to find out why there are now such problems with recruitment, the army called in the research company Millward Brown to do a study. It found that the resistance was due to popular objection to the war in Iraq, the casualties, and media coverage of the torture at Abu Ghraib. The study reportedly concluded that, “Reasons for not considering military service are increasingly based on objections to the Iraq situation and aversion to the military.”

In short, the Bush administration has failed to make its case for the war in Iraq. Now, people see and read about what really happens in war, and towns and cities are facing the reality of the 1,750 or so American military deaths and well over 12,500 wounded so far in Iraq. A June 2005 Gallup poll found that in the past five years the proportion of Americans who said they would support their child’s entering the military has fallen from two-thirds to about half. This has not all happened spontaneously. Across the U.S. there is a growing campaign against military recruitment that is bringing parents, teachers, and peace activists to protect students from military recruiters.

Retention Also a Problem

It is not just recruitment. The military has been having problems keeping its soldiers. Almost 30{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of new recruits leave within six months. Some of it is at least due to the vast gap between the day-to-day experiences of young people before they join up and the life of a recruit during training. Stories talk of recruits who “can’t eat, they literally vomit every time they put a spoon in their mouths, they’re having nightmares.” Bonuses are being offered to encourage soldiers to re-enlist once their service is over. It is reported that re-enlistment bonuses can be as high as $150,000, depending on the specialty and length of re-enlistment.

Some reports suggest the army has started to lower its standards for soldier performance, and so reduce losses. The Wall Street Journal has reported a military memo directing commanders not to dismiss soldiers for poor fitness, unsatisfactory performance, or even for pregnancy, alcoholism, and drug abuse.

There are problems with desertion. The Pentagon has admitted that more than 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the start of the Iraq war. In comparison, 1,509 deserted in 1995. The cases that have become public have said that they did so because they are opposed to the war. A telephone hotline to help soldiers who want to leave the military has reported that the number of calls it is receiving is now double of what it was in 2001–the hotline answered 33,000 calls last year.

A New Army of Mercenaries?

Max Boot, a prominent military commentator, named among “the 500 most influential people in the United States in the field of foreign policy,” has offered his solution for the problem of finding people to fight America’s wars. In a recent article, Boot proposed that the path to a bigger American army lay in offering a new deal, “Defend America, Become American.” Boot has proposed the U.S. should look beyond just U.S. citizens and permanent, legal residents for soldiers to fight in its military.

He has proposed a “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act,” a DREAM Act, as he puts it, that would offer legal status to the children of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. and eligibility for citizenship if they can meet a number of conditions, including graduating from high school, and if they go to college or choose to serve in the military. A bill to this effect was introduced in the U.S. Senate but has not been voted on yet.

Even this may not be enough though. Like many others who argue that America should embrace fully and enthusiastically its imperialism, Boot believes there is a need to dramatically increase the size of the U.S. military, and military spending will have to rise to pay for an army able to put and keep troops on the ground in faraway countries. He has proposed that the U.S. should “offer citizenship to anyone, anywhere on the planet, willing to serve a set term in the U.S. military.”

Boot asks, “Would foreigners sign up to fight for Uncle Sam? I don’t see why not, because so many people are desperate to move here. Serving a few years in the military would seem a small price to pay and it would establish beyond a doubt that they are the kind of motivated, hardworking immigrants we want.” The nightmare of war is offered as the prelude to the “American dream.”

(Zia Mian is a Pakistani physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University (www.princeton.edu/~globsec) and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). This is a revised version of an article that originally appeared in Economic and Political Weekly.)

For More Information

Sixty Years Without Nuclear War
By Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel
http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/pd/363

A New American Century?
By Zia Mian (May 4, 2005)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0505amcent.html

U.S.-Russian Lessons for South Asia
By Zia Mian, R. Rajaraman, and Frank von Hippel (August 2, 2002)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0208nukelessons.html

Nuclear War in South Asia
By Matthew McKinzie, Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana, and A.H. Nayyar (June 2002)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/nuclearsasia.html

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Unraveling of the U.S. Military

National Guard Endures from One Gulf to Another

Posted on September 19, 2005 by Team VCS

NATIONAL GUARD ENDURES FROM ONE GULF TO ANOTHER

By Diane M. Grassi         September 15, 2005

There is evidence that there will be many heroic tales to be told and to be heard as the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and parts of Alabama and Florida recover from the worst hurricane to hit the United States in recorded history. And unfortunately there will be stories forthcoming due to the loss of life, the loss of livelihoods and devastation, some permanent, as well as the remarkable rearrangement of shoreline of parts of the Gulf of Mexico resulting from Hurricane Katrina’s strength.

The U.S. will feel, on a national scale, the strife and ramifications due to the shut down of one of the country’s major ports and supplier of 25{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of the nation’s petroleum, as well as the indefinite shutdown of New Orleans, one of the largest tourist cities in the nation. However, another segment of the population of residents from southern Louisiana, New Orleans, as well as southern Mississippi will no doubt have life changing stories to tell as well, perhaps like no others.

Members of the Army National Guard with Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, the 1st Battalion – 141st Field Artillery Regiment started their return to the U.S. on September 10, 2005, after serving a year in a war zone in Iraq. 545 members of the unit severely impacted by the storm due to the loss of their homes, missing relatives and those with family who have relocated to other states, were the first to return of the nearly 2,500 members of Louisiana’s Guard serving in Iraq. Remaining members are set to return the third week of September at which time their tour of duty was originally scheduled to conclude. All will arrive at Ft. Polk, LA.

According to Army Brigadier General John P.Basilica, the Brigade Combat Team commander, “We are very, very well trained and have performed recovery operations in the past. We have a significant number of soldiers in the brigade that are ready to transition from this fight to that fight,” when referring to the recovery efforts taking place on the Gulf Coast. “We’re going to get our arms around these soldiers and make sure they’re taken care of, and then we will take care of the rest of the population that is suffering.”

Unique to the troops serving in Iraq who are now returning to their stateside post is the combination of having no homes to return to for many, many of them. On top of that, many plan to take part in the recovery process, further delaying their plans to either re-enlist or to make plans to return to their civilian lives. Many Guard members’ places of employment are also gone now. And while family members have relocated to other cities or states, it is but another obstacle for the troops in their decision-making process. Unofficial estimates have about 800 of these troops interested in continuing in the service and 1,500 want to return to civilian life. The remaining 200 are undecided.

After taking part in combat operations, training Iraq security forces, and providing essential services for Iraqis which included economic development and governance for the past year, the 256th Infantry BCT soldiers look forward to getting a break and returning to loved ones. There is always an adjustment period for soldiers returning from war and now these self-sacrificing soldiers who originally enlisted as part-time soldiers with the Guard have much to contemplate and bear. There are those, now with jobs gone, who were looking forward to returning to civilian life but must now reconsider re-enlisting as active duty Army in order to maintain an income.

Not all of the troops affected by Katrina’s devastation will be lucky enough to return home any time soon, however. Members of the Mississippi Guard’s 155th Brigade Combat Team serving south of Baghdad have about 600 members who live in the parts of southern Mississippi and southeast Louisiana hardest hit by Katrina and about 300 members  of the 155th Brigade’s B and C companies suffered complete losses of their homes or severe damage. Only 80 Mississippi Guard members have been granted emergency leave of 15-day days thus far. The rest of the company has completely been refused leave and were told that they must wait until mid-January to return to the U.S., upon completion of their tours of duty.

Soldiers in the 155th Brigade have stated and relayed to relatives via e-mail or telephone that they were told by their brigade command that all other forward operations “are tapped out and therefore cannot send troops home.” According to Marine spokesman, Major Neil F. Murphy, Jr. of the Marine Expeditionary Force to which the 155th Brigade is attached, said he is investigating the source of those command statements as so many claims of the information were brought to his attention. This has added to the stress which soldiers must endure, with many still not aware of the status of their homes or relocations of their families.

The need for the National Guard called up in Katrina’s aftermath, with 50{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of Louisiana’s Guard deployed in Iraq and 40{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of Mississippi’s Guard there as well, has prompted elected officials in statehouses as well as in Congress to consider revisiting how the force is utilized. Americans and elected officials from both parties have had nothing but praise for Guard members. Most were put in an impossible situation upon arrival for hurricane duty, some having even being shot at by people in New Orleans.

But lawmakers have questioned whether the poor communication between the federal government and the states involved in addition to overseas deployments of the Guard, inordinately delayed the necessary quick arrival of troops. Congressman Gene Taylor of Bay St. Louis, LA whose home was washed away also commented that the lack of local knowledge of Guard members retrieved from other states impacted the response effort as well.

Lt. General Steven Blum, Bureau Chief of the National Guard has stated, “Arguably response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard’s 155th Brigade and Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade. Had they not been in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear.” He went on to say that the assignment of thousands of Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana to Iraq delayed those states’ initial hurricane response by about a day. Additionally the ability to recruit and retain Guard members is of concern to Congress regarding stress on manpower and the dual-duty required of troops stateside and in Iraq. Equipment availability is also a worry.

According to Senator John Thune (R-SD) of the Senate Armed Services Committee, “All those things are going to become much bigger issues that we’re going to have to address.” Senator Jack Reed (R-RI) also on the committee asked, “How do you maintain overseas deployment of significant numbers and still maintain a Guard force in the U.S. capable of responding to disasters?” And while the federal government has not always brought the Guard under its control for overseas military missions, in recent years these part-time citizen soldiers have been called upon by the Pentagon, often for extended tours. Additionally, governors and members of Congress have had apprehensions about long active-duty tours, which could impair recruitment and retention levels along with an indefinite amount of time now for hurricane assistance.

And Senator John Warner (R-VA), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a key member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs said on September 13th believes, “That Hurricane Katrina could lead to major changes in the military, including revoking or relaxing restrictions on putting active-duty military troops into domestic law enforcement duties.” Although Senator Warner said that he has been working on the concept for 18 months noted, “The time has come that we should just reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act and other statutes that have served this nation quite well in years passed.”

The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military involvement in law enforcement. The Insurrection Act allows for some exceptions to the law, however its inability to enact swift law enforcement in emergency situations is limiting.  “We face an uncertain future as it relates to terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The hurricane provides an example of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that are close to overwhelmed,” according to Senator Warner.

Senator Warner is not in a hurry to enact changes, but he wants discussion about whether changes in military and criminal law should be made. “We need to look at the totality of permanent law and regulation to determine what changes should be made to meet contingencies of the nature we have experienced, whether it is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack in the future. But Katrina with its heavy military involvement, provides examples that can help bring attention to the need for a review of the laws,” Warner said.

The great sacrifice on behalf of our volunteer soldiers and their families cannot be stated enough. Like all victims of Katrina, those soldiers returning home from overseas will need the support of the American people and various levels of government as they readdress their lives. And it is through such sacrifice which will hopefully bring new light to improved ways our military is best maintained and appropriated by state and federal governments in the future. Maybe some good can be realized from Katrina, after all.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on National Guard Endures from One Gulf to Another

U.S. Agenda on Iran Lacking Key Support

Posted on September 17, 2005 by Team VCS

Despite an intense lobbying effort at the most senior levels, the Bush administration failed to persuade three key countries Thursday to back the United States in pressuring Iran to give up sensitive aspects of its nuclear energy program, diplomats and officials said.

Russia, China and India either publicly or privately turned down U.S. requests to help report Iran’s case next week to the U.N. Security Council, which has the authority to impose economic sanctions or an oil embargo.

The administration has the reluctant support of the European Union for the first time in more than two years, but that will not be enough. Without backing from one of the three others, U.S. officials indicated they were preparing to abandon, for now, a quest to move the matter into the council.

The decision left the administration scrambling for a Plan B, and U.S. and European diplomats said there were backroom negotiations, on the margins of a U.N. summit in New York, to forge a compromise among countries with influence on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some officials said they were considering the possibility of an IAEA resolution that would set a concrete deadline for Iran to comply with a series of measures. If Iran failed, the IAEA board would automatically take the matter to the Security Council.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday and will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday, acknowledged that Washington might lack a convincing majority if the IAEA votes on whether to refer Iran’s case to the council when it meets Monday in Vienna.

“If we get a referralon September 19, that will be good, but I think the issue of a referral is something that we’ll be working for a while,” Rice told Fox News. “I’m not so concerned about exactly when it happens, because I don’t think this matter is so urgent that it has to be on September 19,” she said.

Her comments were the strongest public indication yet that the administration was reversing course after expressing confidence, as recently as last week, that it was closer than at any time in the past to taking the matter to the Security Council. U.S. and foreign diplomats said India, which recently forged a major new security and nuclear alliance with the United States, could not be persuaded to join the U.S. strategy. India, which has close economic, political and cultural ties to Iran, has said it supports Iran’s right to a nuclear energy program.

India’s position, which U.S. officials have said they had not anticipated, has been deeply embarrassing for the White House at a time when it is trying to win congressional support for the India deal. Some officials, who would discuss the diplomatic calculations underway only on condition of anonymity, said the administration preferred to give up the chance of winning a slim majority in the IAEA next week rather than seek a vote that India would publicly oppose.

Iran insists its nuclear efforts are aimed at producing nuclear energy, not bombs. The Bush administration has said that the energy program, built in secret over 18 years and exposed in 2002, is just a cover for a weapons program. Iran has built facilities to enrich uranium to fuel its energy program. But the facilities could produce bomb-grade uranium, and the Bush administration wants the Iranians to give them up.

While many countries appear to share U.S. suspicions about Iran’s intentions, they have profound differences with the Bush administration over how to respond, and are apprehensive about the goals of a U.S. president who has said that “all options are on the table” in dealing with Tehran.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said the differences were tactical, rather than strategic, and that efforts were underway to “convince the Iranians to return to the talks” they started with the Europeans in the fall of 2003.

Iran bolted the talks in August after receiving European proposals that would have required Tehran to permanently give upmuch of the nuclear energy program it has already built. Burns said he would devote the next several days to working with the Russians on the Iran issue.

Even the Europeans, frustrated after two tumultuous years of negotiations with Iran over the future of its nuclear program, said they prefer to avoid going to the Security Council.

“Our aim all the way through in this when we started these negotiations was to keep the matter out of the Security Council,” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters after a half-hour meeting Thursday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “What we’re going to do is to listen carefully to what [Ahmadinejad] is going to say on Saturday afternoon and we’ll take it from there.”

Ahmadinejad, who has been holding his own round of talks with world leaders attending the U.N. summit, met with Straw and the French and German foreign ministers. The European ministers held an earlier 90-minute meeting with Iran’s foreign minister and Ahmadinejad’s national security adviser.

The newly elected hard-line Iranian president has little foreign policy experience. But he told reporters Thursday he plans to present new proposals to resolve the impasse when he addresses the conference Saturday. He said Iran’s aims are peaceful and that “any improper use of production for nuclear arms should be prevented.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on U.S. Agenda on Iran Lacking Key Support

World Leaders Shake Heads as Reforms to Check Nuclear Arms Spread Dumped

Posted on September 17, 2005 by Team VCS

Kofi Annan has called it a disgrace and Australian Prime Minister John Howard termed it a major disappointment.

After months of wrangling, world leaders were shaking their heads over the dumping of proposed UN reforms to check nuclear weapons proliferation and disarmament.

Despite increasing concerns over illicit nuclear weapon networks and terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction, negotiators working for months on a reform package to beef up the United Nations failed to agree on how to revamp global non-proliferation rules.

They adopted a watered-down package of reforms to be endorsed by the leaders of the world attending the 60th anniversary meeting of the global body.

Proposed new rules on nuclear weapons proliferation and disarmament were completely disregarded.

“It’s a real disgrace,” said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, lamenting the omission, which reportedly came after Washington gave only lukewarm support for the reforms.

He blamed “posturing” for the failure to find a common approach to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Annan called nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament “our biggest challenge, and our biggest failing,” citing a similar failed effort at a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference earlier this year.

Diplomats said the United States had vehemently objected to focusing on disarmament by major powers rather than on the spread of nuclear weapons among rogue states and terrorists.

Norway crafted the proposals and submitted them to the United Nations in July, with Annan backing the initiative as a basis “for a wide-ranging consensus.”

The United States initially stayed mum on the proposed reforms.

But only days before the summit, the world’s only superpower reluctantly came into the fold, joining about about half the 191 UN member nations led by Britain, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa, Chile and Romania.

John Bolton, an ex-arms control chief at the US State Department and currently the new US ambassador to the UN, reportedly was against the proposal initially and, some claim, had campaigned against it.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard did not hide his disgust.

“I’m very, very disappointed” by the omission, he said.

“We think issues concerning Iran and North Korea and proliferation issues are the most important item on the disarmament agenda, and if serious progress is to be made then we have to make progress in these areas,” he said

Indonesian government spokesman Marty Natalegawa agreed.

He said it was a “matter of concern” that various parties had expressed concern over proliferation and disarmament and yet did not back the much needed reform.

“It is a glaring omission. The absence is disquieting. We find that one of the most deserving aspects of the whole document,” he said.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said both the proliferation and the perpetual possession of nuclear weapons posed an “unacceptable global danger.”

He called for a “new consensus” to achieve disarmament and non-proliferation.

The lukewarm US support for disarmament efforts stems from concerns relating to issues such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which Washington has refused to ratify, one Western diplomat said.

It was the collapse of the NPT review conference, which the United States was again blamed for, that prompted the reforms crafted by Norway together with Britain, Australia, Indonesia, Chile and Romania.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on World Leaders Shake Heads as Reforms to Check Nuclear Arms Spread Dumped

The Pentagon’s nuclear wish

Posted on September 17, 2005 by Team VCS

Amid increasing tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program, and growing concern about overstretched US ground forces, the George W Bush administration is moving steadily toward adopting the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy.

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon’s website, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls “weapons of mass destruction” before resorting to a nuclear strike against them. The document, entitled “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations”, has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief DonaldRumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday’s Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the US.

“What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers in preemptive first strikes,” Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS), said about the NPR and the new doctrine.

The doctrine would also appear to contradict the administration’s oft-stated claim that it is significantly reducing the role of nuclear weapons in its global military strategy.

“The new doctrine reaffirms an aggressive nuclear posture of modernized nuclear weapons maintained on high alert,” Hans Kristensen, of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), wrote last week in Arms Control Today magazine. “The new doctrine’s approach grants regional nuclear-strike planning an increasingly expeditionary aura that threatens to make nuclear weapons just another tool in the toolbox.

“The result is nuclear preemption, which the new doctrine enshrines into official US joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, where the objective no longer is deterrence through threatened retaliation but battlefield destruction of targets.”

The doctrine is the latest in a series of documents adopted by the administration that has moved the US away from the traditional view that nuclear weapons should be used solely for the purposes of defense and deterrence.

Along with the NPR, which called for the development of new delivery systems for nuclear weapons and noted that China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya could all be targets, the new view was expounded by Bush himself in his September 2002 National Security Strategy document. “We cannot let our enemies strike first,” he warned at the time.

In mid-2004, according to national security analyst William Arkin, Rumsfeld approved a top-secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order”, which directed the military to be prepared to attack potential adversaries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, notably Iran and North Korea.

The order, according to a classified January 2003 presidential directive obtained by Arkin, is defined as including nuclear, as well as conventional, strikes “in support of theater and national objectives”.

The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which a preemptive nuclear strike might be used, including:
* If an adversary intended to use weapons of mass destruction against the US multinational or allied forces or a civilian population
* In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy
* Against adversary installations, including weapons of mass destruction; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attack against the US or its friends and allies
* In cases where a demonstration of US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons would deter weapons of mass destruction use by an adversary.

The previous doctrine, promulgated under the Clinton administration in 1995 made no mention of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against any target, let alone describe scenarios in which such use would be considered.

Moreover, the new doctrine blurs the distinction that existed during the Cold War between strategic and theater nuclear weapons by “assigning all nuclear weapons, whether strategic or nonstrategic, support roles in theater nuclear operations”, according to Kristensen.

Another particularly worrisome aspect of the latest doctrine, according to Oelrich, is its conflation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as one “WMD” threat that could justify a US nuclear strike, particularly given the huge disparity in destructive and lethal impact between chemical weapons, on the one hand, and nuclear arms on the other.

“What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons if [the administration] suspects another country might use chemical weapons against us,” he said. “Iraq is a perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a country where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical weapons against us.”

Critics also fear that resorting to nuclear weapons may have become increasingly attractive to the administration as the Army and Marines have become bogged down in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

“[US Strategic Command] planners, recognizing that US ground forces are already over committed, say that a global strike must be able to be implemented ‘without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces,'” according to Arkin’s account of recent directives received by commanders charged with contingency planning.

The new strategy may also be relevant to the situation in Iran, which is known to have chemical weapons but whose nuclear program Washington insists is being used to produce weapons as well.

Writing in The American Conservative magazine last month, columnist Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who also worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, reported that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had tasked the United States Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan for a “large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons” in the event of another September 11-type terrorist attack.

“Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option,” he wrote.

In fact, it is questionable whether even US nuclear weapons could reach their hardened targets underground, which is why the Pentagon has been pressing Congress for several years to finance research into the development of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Democrats and a small minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives have so far blocked the administration’s request, although it will be taken up later this fall by a joint House-Senate conference committee. The new strategy may be aimed in part at exerting pressure on the lawmakers to approve the request.

Meanwhile, however, administration critics warn that instead of deterring potential adversaries from pursuing nuclear weapons, the new doctrine is almost certain to have the opposite effect.

“We make it seem that nuclear weapons are essential to our security,” noted Oelrich. “So it immensely enhances the cachet of nuclear weapons to others.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on The Pentagon’s nuclear wish

Lieutenant General Blum: Guard units stretched thin due to Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina

Posted on September 17, 2005 by Team VCS

Guard units stretched thin

National Guard chief: Overseas missions left forces short of much-needed gear

Stephen J. Hedges, Chicago Tribune, Saturday, September 17, 2005

WASHINGTON — The deployment of nearly 50,000 National Guard troops from 50 states as part of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort has exposed debilitating equipment shortages in a force already stretched thin by three years of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, said in an interview that the needs of Guard units overseas have left troops at home without modern communications and night vision equipment, as well as the vehicles necessary for Guard troops to traverse neighborhoods flooded in the wake of Katrina.

“Communications was the biggest challenge,” Blum said of the Guard’s post-hurricane performance. “You can’t respond if you don’t know what the situation is out there.”

Most of the Guard’s satellite phones–essential during the power and cell phone service outages caused by Katrina–are with troops in Iraq. Indeed, Blum said, the Guard’s best equipment is overseas, causing shortages for disaster relief efforts in this country. The heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve units by active-duty military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a concern in Congress, where lawmakers have questioned whether Guard forces are receiving the proper training and equipment for combat operations.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said last week that “once again our Guard is, I don’t like to use the word `stressed,’ but they are challenged” by commitments at home and overseas.

In the past, the military, especially the Army, has called on the Guard for logistics and other support during combat operations abroad. That was initially the case in Iraq, but as attacks on Guard units increased, so did their mission.

“The type of war America is waging in Iraq requires some of the same skills that disaster relief in the gulf states requires,” said Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank. “That would include military police, helicopters and military engineers. So there is the possibility that these two missions would come into conflict.”

Governors in several states have raised concerns about the Guard’s long-term overseas deployments. That’s especially true in the West, where a busy fire season may be in store because of drought; Guardsmen have been used to fight fires.

The Guard staffing shortage was an immediate concern as Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, because about 6,000 Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard troops were deployed in Iraq at the time. That left about 12,500 Guard members available in the two states for hurricane relief.

Several hundred soldiers from the Louisiana unit came back early, and the Guard intends to keep all soldiers returning to hurricane-damaged states from Iraq on active duty to help in the storm-ravaged area.

80,000 stationed overseas

But Blum said the absence of those 6,000 troops had an impact on the ability of units in each state to respond immediately. Those Guard units were called to duty before the hurricane hit. Units from Kansas and Indiana were dispatched to fill the gap, Blum said, but did not arrive until the day after the hurricane came ashore.

About 80,000 Guard members are on duty overseas. Most of them are in Iraq, but some also are serving in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sinai and the Horn of Africa. About 300,000 Guard soldiers and airmen remain available for other missions, enough to staff overseas deployments and stateside relief efforts, Blum said.

Katrina has refocused attention on the homeland security role of the Guard and the heavy demands that have been made on it. The Senate Armed Services Committee has held three closed briefings with the Pentagon and Guard on the military’s hurricane response, and further congressional review of Guard funding and roles is expected this fall. Some experts said the situation is getting dire.

“These guys get the hand-me-downs,” said John Pike, a military analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. “And some of these units are turning into just bunches of guys. I think between the flipping of equipment [to Guard units] and the wearing out of equipment and being under-strength, I don’t know how much more you could take as a force.”

The National Guard traditionally has received secondhand weapons, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment as the active-duty military is re-equipped. But Blum said the steady pace of Guard deployments overseas has reduced the amount of Guard gear available in each state.

Because of the Guard’s close links to the active-duty military, it is difficult to discern what portion of the national defense budget and hurricane relief aid will go to Guard units. But equipment procurement levels for the Guard actually dropped from $447 million in 2004 to $349 million in 2005.

Scrambling to find gear

When Katrina struck, Blum said, the National Guard scrambled to find the gear its troops would need, drawing on units from all over the country. While 32 helicopters were immediately available in the stricken region, he said, 100 more were delivered in the first week.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi requested troops from out of state. The first of those forces –about 1,400 troops–arrived at the Superdome in New Orleans later on the day the storm hit, Blum said. An additional 2,800 troops arrived over the next two days.

Nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina, some Guard units have already returned home. Relief efforts in Mississippi, where a storm surge and high winds receded after inflicting widespread property damage, are being turned over to local Guard units, government agencies and contractors.

In Louisiana, particularly in New Orleans, out-of-state troops are expected to remain for several more weeks.

Ironically, the disaster relief mission could help recruiting, which has been flagging under the weight of continued Iraq deployments.

Re-enlistment is up. And there was enthusiasm among Guard members for the relief mission on the Gulf Coast, despite the fact that the Guard estimates half of those now involved in hurricane relief efforts have already served at least a single one-year tour in Iraq.

Maj. Neal O’Brien, a spokesman for the Ohio National Guard, said Ohio has sent about 1,600 troops to New Orleans. About 7,000 of Ohio’s Guard troops–more than half of the state’s total force–have gone overseas during the last three years, he said.

But when it came to hurricane relief, O’Brien said, “There was no shortage of volunteers who wanted to go down and help.”

shedges@tribune.com

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Lieutenant General Blum: Guard units stretched thin due to Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina