Apr 23, VA News: Tammy Duckworth Confirmed as Assistant Secretary

April 22, 2009, Chicago, IL — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday confirmed former Iraq War helicopter pilot Tammy Duckworth’s nomination as an assistant secretary at the Veterans Affairs Department.

Duckworth will direct the Office of Public Affairs and Intergovernmental Communications. Among other things, the Illinois National Guard major will oversee VA’s public affairs operations, as well as programs for homeless veterans.

“President Obama and America’s veterans now have Tammy Duckworth as their advocate and champion,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a statement. “I know Tammy will bring the same level of commitment to the VA that she has shown in fighting for her country and representing Illinois veterans.”

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, delayed Duckworth’s nomination earlier this month, saying he wanted more due diligence. A spokesman at the time said Burr wanted “to ensure that veterans have the best representation possible.”

Duckworth, a major in the Illinois National Guard, lost both her legs and partial use of one arm in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in 2004. She ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2006, but lost.

On Feb. 3, Obama nominated her to the VA position. Soon after, she stepped down from her position as director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, where she had worked since 2006.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Apr 23, VA News: Tammy Duckworth Confirmed as Assistant Secretary

Apr 21, VCS Update: Call Congress to Support HR 952, and Reduce Veteran Suicides

VA opened up a suicide prevention hotline that currently averages 220 calls a day and performs 6 rescues – that’s a total of more than 100,000 calls and 2,600 rescues. . . . VCS thanks the hard working VA staff for saving lives every day.   More needs to be done.  This is why VCS urges our members to take action and call Congress and ask them to pass HR 952, the “COMBAT PTSD” introduced by Chairman John Hall.

April 21, 2009 – Veterans for Common Sense was the first group in the country to raise the alarm about the growing suicide epidemic among all of our Nation’s service members and veterans.

VCS worked with CBS Evening News for several months to uncover and report this very serious crisis in November 2007.

VA’s refusal to provide prompt and high-quality treatment for suicidal veterans caused VCS and Veterans United for Truth to sue VA in July 2007, a case that is now on appeal.

Our landmark lawsuit uncovered the infamous e-mails from a top VA official ordering employees to conceal the staggering number of veterans attempting suicide each month.

Thanks in part to our lawsuit, VA opened up a suicide prevention hotline that currently averages 220 calls a day and performs 6 rescues – that’s a total of more than 100,000 calls and 2,600 rescues. This is one example of how VCS helps our veterans at the national level.

We’ve seen this country take great strides to help our veterans. VCS thanks the hard working VA staff for saving lives every day.

However, we are saddened the tragic suicide epidemic continues. Repeated deployments – nearly 40 percent of our troops have deployed to war twice or more – are stretching our troops too thin.

For some men and women suffering from PTSD, getting an order to deploy may be the final straw. Veterans for Common Sense wants the military and VA to investigate the role a deployment / re-deployment notice may play in triggering PTSD and suicide.

Last month, General Chiarelli said: “The rational person might think the more deployments, the more likely you are to commit suicide, but we saw exactly the opposite” (Salon, Mar. 5, 2009).

In contrast to the comment by General Chiarelli, the U.S. District Court reached a different conclusion in June 2008: “Dr. Gerald Cross, the Deputy Under Secretary for Health in the VA, testified that the high rates of PTSD among Iraq veterans are the result of various factors, including multiple deployments, the inability to identify the enemy, the lack of real safe zones, and the inadvertent killing of innocent civilians.”

Here are four case studies indicating that a notice of a future re-deployment may be a trigger for sucide among some veterans:

Case 1: Army Specialist
Deployed: Iraq, 2004 – 2005
Notice to redeploy: May 2008
Suicide: One week later

Case 2: Army Sergeant
Deployed: Afghanistan, 2004 – 2005
Notice to redeploy: November 2006
Suicide: One month later

Case 3: Marine Lance Corporal
Deployed: Iraq Invasion, 2003
Notice to redeploy: June 2004
Suicide: Three weeks later

Case 4: Army Specialist
Deployed: Iraq, 2005 – 2006
Notice to redeploy: August 2007
Suicide: One week later

VCS works hard to change rules at VA to allow veterans to recieve faster medical care and disability benefits for post traumatic stress disorder. This is why we urge our members to take action and call Congress and ask them to pass HR 952, the “COMBAT PTSD” introduced by Chairman John Hall.

This bill may save lives by improving access to VA mental healthcare.

Veterans for Common Sense wants to thank all of our members for their committed support of America’s veterans.

With the help of all of you, we are able to make real changes in people’s lives.

Please make a gift to VCS today so we can continue our important work together.

Thank you,

Paul Sullivan
Executive Director
Veterans for Common Sense

VCS provides advocacy and publicity for issues related to veterans, national security, and civil liberties. VCS is registered with the IRS as a non-profit 501(c)(3) charity, and donations are tax deductible.

VCS needs to raise $10,000 in April 2009.  We have 9 days left!  Your contribution is tax deductible.

There are Five Easy Ways to Support Veterans for Common Sense

1. GroundSpring: Give by credit card through Groundspring.org

2. PayPal: Make a donation to VCS through PayPal

3. DonationLine: Donate your car to VCS through DonationLine

4. eBay: Designate VCS to benefit from your eBay.com auction

5. Send a check to:
Veterans for Common Sense
P.O. Box 77304
Washington, DC 20013

 

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Apr 21, VCS Update: Call Congress to Support HR 952, and Reduce Veteran Suicides

Apr 21, President Obama Wins Respect from Military

April 21, 2009 – A crisp salute, a first lady’s campaign, a generous budget and some familiar appointments have allowed President Obama to take great strides toward reassuring the group that was perhaps the most wary of his election — the military.

While past and present military leaders aren’t about to change their largely Republican leanings, they are willing to credit the president with some shrewd moves that allowed him to avoid the mistakes that made for such a hostile relationship between the military and the last non-veteran president — and Democrat — Bill Clinton.

Even though many former Clintonites are back in power with Obama, “they’re not dumb enough to make the same mistakes,” said retired Army Lt. Col. James J. Carafano, now a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation. “I think they are much more attuned to the challenges of civil-military relationships than Clinton was when he came in.”

One of the smart things he said Obama did to reassure the military was to appoint respected retired military people to key posts — Army Gen. Eric Shinseki as head of the Veterans Affairs Department, Marine Gen. James Jones as national security adviser, and Adm. Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence. The president retained the service chiefs, which is normal, and two of the three service secretaries, which is not normal since they are political appointees. He also retained Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Nothing showed the contrast between the early approaches of Obama and Clinton more than one moment during Obama’s April 7 visit with troops in Iraq. “We love you,” shouted a soldier as other troops cheered and the flashes of dozens of cameras went off. “I love you back,” said the president. The soldiers at that base could not restrain their enthusiasm, stretching their hands to touch their new commander-in-chief.

At about the same time in his presidency, Clinton visited sailors aboard the carrier Theodore Roosevelt in 1993. There were no outstretched hands then, just a quiet, almost sullen reception and lots of complaints to reporters about a president who didn’t understand the military.

Another early sign of good things for Obama was something far less substantive but symbolically important — his salute.

The first 39 presidents did not salute, even though 25 of them were veterans and 12 had been generals. But once Ronald Reagan started returning salutes from military honor guards, every president since has had his salute put under the microscope. From the moment of Obama’s first salute, outside a gym at a Marine air base in Hawaii in December, his style has been praised.

Inside the Pentagon and inside the powerful veterans’ organizations, though, they were looking for more than symbolism. They wanted signs that the new president respected them and was willing to back that respect with money in his first budget.

One early positive signal came when Michelle Obama made clear that the plight of military families would be her prime cause as first lady. Since the inauguration, she has often talked about that cause and has traveled to Fort Bragg and to Arlington National Cemetery to meet with families.

The president also signaled his interest with his schedule — talking to his Iraq commanders, meeting with retired officers, going to the Pentagon and meeting with senior enlisted officials all in his first 10 days in office. He also traveled to Camp Lejeune to meet with troops and gave a major speech at the National Defense University.

Obama’s only major military stumble came from a budget proposal that enraged large and powerful veterans’ groups. The administration hoped to save $540 million by having treatment for service-connected injuries charged to the private insurance plans of veterans. The anger escalated when Obama clung to the proposal after leaders of all the major veterans’ groups came to the White House to complain in a March 16 meeting with the president, Shinseki, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Steven Kosiak, the director in charge of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget.

“All parties went into that meeting very hopeful that the decision would be reversed then and there,” said Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the 2.6-million-member American Legion. “When it was not, there was disillusionment, disappointment, even anger.”

Less than 48 hours — and 53 radio interviews by Roberts — later, the White House dropped the proposal. “There were some hurt feelings on both sides,” he said. But he noted that veterans’ groups are “generally encouraged” by what they have seen from Obama, singling out “the surge in Afghanistan, the sensitivity to military families that the first lady has shown … and the overall VA budget proposal from the president, which exceeds even our own expectations.” That budget, boasted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, calls for the largest VA increase in 30 years.

Roberts said he believes the ex-Clintonites around Obama have been crucial. “I think he’s being schooled by them,” he said. “He is showing a better understanding of the military’s role in our society and the necessity for a strong and healthy military. We may not agree with all of his policies regarding it, but he seems to be showing a greater sensitivity to the need for a military and how to treat military families.”

One lesson from the Clinton veterans was not to fall into the trap that ensnared Clinton when he tackled the question of gays in the military right out of the box in 1993. In contrast, said Carafano, Obama “sent out pretty clear signals that that is not an issue that is going to be addressed right now, that that is something for down the road.”

P.J. Crowley has seen both sides of the divide. As an Air Force colonel, he was an insider at the Pentagon and the White House in the Clinton years, serving 11 years as a spokesman at the Pentagon and three years as a spokesman for the National Security Council. Currently, he is close to the Obama team from his perch as a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress and is said to be in line for a top job at the State Department.

He contends that Clinton had a “very strong relationship” with the military by the time he left office. But he acknowledged “it took awhile,” adding, “Clearly, anyone who comes after him benefits from that experience.”

While praising Obama for “quite effectively managing his early relationship with the military and the veterans’ community,” Crowley said more than politics is involved. “The relationship between the military and the commander-in-chief is fundamental to our democracy. It is an important relationship. At some point in a campaign, any candidate has to pass the commander-in-chief test” or he will not win the campaign. But then, in office, inevitably comes “a trial” when a president must flex American military muscle. That trial has not yet come for Obama.

Otto Kreisher contributed to this report.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Apr 21, President Obama Wins Respect from Military

Apr 20: New York Times Editorial Calls for Impeachment of Judge Bybee – Author of Bush-Era Torture Memos

The Torturers’ Manifesto

April 19, 2009 – To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush’s Justice Department is to take a journey into depravity.

Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.

In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.

These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.

It sounds like the plot of a mob film, except the lawyers asking how much their clients can get away with are from the C.I.A. and the lawyers coaching them on how to commit the abuses are from the Justice Department. And it all played out with the blessing of the defense secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence director and, most likely, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Americans Civil Liberties Union deserves credit for suing for the memos’ release. And President Obama deserves credit for overruling his own C.I.A. director and ordering that the memos be made public. It is hard to think of another case in which documents stamped “Top Secret” were released with hardly any deletions.

But this cannot be the end of the scrutiny for these and other decisions by the Bush administration.

Until Americans and their leaders fully understand the rules the Bush administration concocted to justify such abuses — and who set the rules and who approved them — there is no hope of fixing a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that that these acts are never repeated.

The abuses and the dangers do not end with the torture memos. Americans still know far too little about President Bush’s decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans — a program that has since been given legal cover by the Congress.

Last week, The Times reported that the nation’s intelligence agencies have been collecting private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad limits established in legislation last year. The article quoted the Justice Department as saying there had been problems in the surveillance program that had been resolved. But Justice did not say what those problems were or what the resolution was.

That is the heart of the matter: nobody really knows what any of the rules were. Mr. Bush never offered the slightest explanation of what he found lacking in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he decided to ignore the law after 9/11 and ordered the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ overseas calls and e-mail. He said he was president and could do what he wanted.

The Bush administration also never explained how it interpreted laws that were later passed to expand the government’s powers to eavesdrop. And the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that everything associated with electronic eavesdropping, including what is allowed and what is not, is a state secret.

We do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did. But if Americans do not know the rules, they cannot judge whether this government or any one that follows is abiding by the rules.

In the case of detainee abuse, Mr. Obama assured C.I.A. operatives that they would not be prosecuted for actions that their superiors told them were legal. We have never been comfortable with the “only following orders” excuse, especially because Americans still do not know what was actually done or who was giving the orders.

After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than that of the Libyan secret police.

At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.

That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.

These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.

After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Apr 20: New York Times Editorial Calls for Impeachment of Judge Bybee – Author of Bush-Era Torture Memos

Apr 17, VCS in the News: VA Public Affairs Official Tried to Silence Veteran’s Claims of Racism

April 17, 2009 – The experience of 56 year-old Army veteran Tommie Canady at the Washington, D.C., Veterans Medical Center was not the only story members of the VA’s Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans heard April 7 when they gathered at the facility for a town hall-type meeting.
 
Vets shared with the committee problems with paperwork and slowness in the processing of disability claims. One group offered up eight areas of concern to the committee, ranging from health care to homelessness, and urged the VA to become even more “vet-centric,” to streamline its processes and to be more forward-thinking in delivering services to families.
 
But Canady’s story — allegations of racial discrimination and a claim that he was twice given an overdose of morphine by a nurse who continues to work at the hospital — peaked the interest of a local radio reporter who, when he tried to interview Canady, was interrupted by a hospital official.

Gloria Hairston, a hospital public affairs officer, told reporter David Schultz he could not use the interview and told Canady he could not talk anymore. But when Canady insisted he would, Hairston returned with a pair of security guards and demanded Schultz turn over his recording equipment.
 
After a quick call to his editor back at WAMU 88.5, a local affiliate of National Public Radio, Schultz turned over the sound card to his recorder and left. It would be the next day before he got to complete his interview with Canady and two more days before he got his sound card back from the hospital.
 
Canady could not be reached for comment. But the hospital’s strong-arm approach to halt the interview had a consequence it didn’t intend — it turned Canady’s claims of racism and malpractice into a larger story and captured the interest of Paul Sullivan, a former VA project manager who monitored Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq War vets and who now heads up Veterans for Common Sense.
 
“I will tell you, under the surface there is some racism” within the VA, Sullivan told Military.com. “Now, whether or not it impacts the delivery of care I don’t know the answer. I wish we had an answer.”
 
It should be a matter of looking at the paperwork on disability claims, he said, comparing like injuries and getting a sense of whether there are discrepancies in who is awarded a disability, who is not, and whether race may be a factor.
 
But you can’t do that, he said, because the VA does not ask applicants for information on race.
 
“The VA … doesn’t ask you to list your race on an application form [for a disability claim], so that it will be impossible to answer that question,” Sullivan said.
 
There is a way to do it, but it would require matching VA records against those maintained by the Pentagon since the Gulf War, when the Defense Department began assigning “a flag” to denote a service member’s ethnicity. But the VA, he believes, would not want to do that, as it did not want to when he and others “tried to sort by race” for Gulf War veterans.
 
“We got smacked down by political appointees. … They said we’d be opening up a can of worms,” Sullivan said. “We were ordered not to look into it.”

 
VA spokeswoman Katie Roberts said that the VA collects race and ethnic data when vets are applying for health benefits or home loans, but does not collect it on applications for disabilities.

The absence of this data on disability claims was noted by VA’s advisory committee on minorities in its July 2008 report, where it noted the general perception among minority veterans that they are not being provided equal services.  But the committee is not able to address such perceptions because racial and ethnic data is not available, it reported, and recommended that the VA “establish uniform criteria” for collecting it.
 
Roberts also said the VA hospital in Washington will look into all claims or concerns brought up by veterans who came out to the town hall. And the VA Advisory Committee on Minorities will follow up and make its own report, she said.
 
A separate investigation is underway into Hairston’s confiscating Schultz’ reporting equipment, Roberts said.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Apr 17, VCS in the News: VA Public Affairs Official Tried to Silence Veteran’s Claims of Racism

Apr 17: VCS Urges Members to Write Spain’s Ambassador and Request War Crime Probe of Bush Torture

The Spanish government may be moving forward with an investigation of war crimes – specifically torture – by the Bush administration.  Earlier this week, VCS wrote Spain’s ambassador to the United States and asked that the investigation continue.

Spanish Judge Wants to Keep Gitmo Torture Case Alive
By Al Goodman
CNN Madrid Bureau Chief

April 17, 2009, Madrid, Spain (CNN) — A Spanish judge moved Friday to keep alive an investigation into six former Bush administration officials for alleged torture of prisoners at the U.S. detention camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Cuba.He acted just hours after prosecutors urged the case to be dropped, according to a court document.

Veterans for Common Sense letter to Spain’s Ambassador: VCS asks you send your own e-mail letter to: emb.washington@maec.es 

April 15, 2009

Dear Ambassador Dezcallar:

According to a news report published yesterday by the Associated Press, “Spanish prosecutors will likely decide this week whether to recommend a full investigation into allegations that six Bush Administration officials sanctioned torture of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, an official in the prosecutor’s office said Tuesday” (“Decision Likely in US Torture Case in Spain,”April 14, 2009).

Due to the urgency of the matter and the pending decision by the Government of Spain, Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) respectfully asks the Government of Spain to consider any and all legal options in bringing to justice anyone suspected of ordering or committing acts of torture, including former officials of the United States government. Founded by Gulf War veterans in 2002, VCS is a charity based in Washington, DC.  VCS and our 15,000 members provide advocacy and publicity about policies related to veterans’ healthcare, veterans’ disability benefits, national security, and civil liberties.

VCS believes torture is wrong.  Torture violates human rights laws and destroys our civil liberties.  VCS works to fight against torture because it needlessly endangers our soldiers who may be captured on the battlefield.  As part of the global community, we believe all nations must abide by international laws such as The Geneva Convention to protect the world’s citizens and service members in times of peace and war.

In our view, there is sufficient evidence already publicly available that would justify the Government of Spain from taking legal action against eight former U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, former Vice President Richard Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, David Addington, John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and William Haynes.

We base our view on the fact that VCS is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies that forced the U.S. government to release hundreds of official U.S. government documents about torture and extraordinary rendition.  View our original October 7, 2003, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, sent with several other organizations: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/nnACLUFOIArequest.pdf.

We respectfully ask you to share torture-related documents with authorities in Spain that were released by the U.S. government in response to our FOIA lawsuit.  The extensive collection of official documents is available at the American Civil Liberties Union FOIA web site: http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/13794res20050429.html  VCS is not alone in our view that former U.S. officials ordered torture.  Two years ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) recommended that, “U.S. authorities investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and take steps to punish the perpetrators, where appropriate, and to prevent such abuses from happening again.”  The ICRC report, dated February 14, 2007, is attached. 

Veterans for Common Sense asks the Government of Spain to do everything legally permitted under Spanish law and international law to investigate torture and extraordinary rendition by anyone, including U.S. government officials, especially if the allegations involve Spanish citizens.  VCS believes the U.S. government may not take these steps as quickly or as aggressively as warranted by the ICRC report or the documents released as a result of our FOIA lawsuit.

If the facts reviewed by the Government of Spain justify prosecution, and we believe they do, then we ask you to move forward with all deliberate speed while documents and witnesses can be identified quickly. VCS believes strongly in the due process rights of those accused of crimes.  Any war crimes trial must be open to the public and provide extensive due process protections for the accused. We would appreciate an answer from the Government of Spain about this very serious issue.

Sincerely, 

Paul Sullivan

Executive Director

Veterans for Common Sense

* * * * * * *

Visit the Amesty International web site, where you can write Congress to demand investigation into torture:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12150

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Apr 17: VCS Urges Members to Write Spain’s Ambassador and Request War Crime Probe of Bush Torture

Army Suicides: The Invisible Elephant in the Pentagon

April 13, 2009, Molalla, OR – I listened to Katy Couric’s story about excessive and worrisome Army suicides on Thursday, April 8th, on CBS. This did not surprise me.

I was a Combat Infantryman, point man, Battalion scout and forward observer in the Infantry during WWII for about two months. When I tell this to fellow Infantry battle veterans, they usually say, “No, you weren’t.”

Well, I was, and I have the PTSD, a Combat Infantry Badge and a Bronze Star to prove it. Been there, done that, seen that!

What really surprised me were the comments of a Light Colonel at Fort Campbell. In response to the shocking numbers, he remarked, “I hardly believed it.”

Well, Colonel, I have some news for you, the Blood and Guts of war mostly occurs to the front of the company command post and most of that kind of war is fought by the Privates with a little help for Corporals and Sergeants, and practically none from the officers behind company CP and even less at Battalion or those way back someplace where the USO and Red Cross girls are.

Those guys’ biggest stress was getting their two or three bottles of booze before it ran out.

Katy reported 13 Army suicides in March ’09, and 54 since January 1, and 140 for last year. The frontline dogface Infantryman sure know what is going on, even if the colonels don’t.

Who said “War is Hell”? I’ll bet a private said it first.

Now as a battle-scarred PTSD veteran, I’m going to tell the Colonel from the Army trade school in West Point not what is going on, but what is NOT going on.

“The frontline soldiers are totally stressed out.” “Urban combat is like walking blindfolded into a mine field.”

“The thousand pound IEDs are the booby traps and the explosion of one can OBLITERATE a soldier even many yards away.”

That is not like going for the booze ration.

In Europe and even in Korea and Nam, soldiers could go AWOL if only for a few hours or days. Any escape from the front can be a life saver.

They sure can’t do it in Iraq.

I predicted two years ago on Salem-News.com that the PTSD and suicide rates of this war would be catastrophic from my own experience.

I am comforted that the newspapers, TV etc and finally the Army have caught up with the facts, maybe.

The worst part of this is that the Army medical and VA care is a colossal travesty. The drugs they are foisting on the PTSD vets are only working on the low level cases.

Those in the moderate or especially severe cases are S-O-L. They are the alcoholics, drug users and suicides.

We will probably spend a trillion dollars taking care of these PTSD vets.

HOORAH for my fellow PTSD vets.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Army Suicides: The Invisible Elephant in the Pentagon

Apr 10, VCS in the News: What Motive Does the Army Have to Misdiagnose PTSD?

April 10, 2009 – In two stories published this week, Salon has described how a soldier secretly taped a psychologist saying that the Army was exerting pressure not to diagnose soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychologist Douglas McNinch of Fort Carson, Colo., twice states on the recording that the Army discourages PTSD diagnoses.

If what McNinch says on the tape is true, why is it happening? Why would the Army purposely diagnose soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with something other than PTSD? Combat stress is as real as your big toe. Why would the Army want to deny, or at least minimize, a known consequence of combat? The truth might rest in math.

Soldiers with PTSD present the Army with two problems, both involving scary numbers. First, soldiers suffering serious combat stress should not be returned to combat, and if they cannot fight they represent a significant manpower loss for an already stretched military.  A recent Rand Corp. study estimates that nearly 20 percent of those Army troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan might suffer from PTSD or major depression. If they were all barred from the battlefield, the Army could lose as many as one out of every five combat troops while trying to fight two wars.

Second, if soldiers are identified as suffering from PTSD and thus disabled, the Army may have to separate those soldiers from the military and pay benefits — benefits that are extensive and can last a lifetime. The direct costs to the Army for treating soldiers with PTSD are potentially astronomical.

If you are a soldier who is officially disabled, you are entitled to collect a percentage of your base pay each month. The percentage depends upon your level of disability. Though this doesn’t happen in every case, the proper disability rating for PTSD is 50 percent, according to an Army memo that is now part of a class-action lawsuit by the National Veterans Legal Services Program. So let’s say, for example, that a 25-year-old private first class was discharged from the Army because of combat-induced PTSD and lived to be 75 years old while collecting benefits at the proper rate of 50 percent. The PFC would receive $784 a month, or half of $1,568 base pay (based on 2009 pay levels) for 50 years. That’s $470,400.

Now take that half-million dollar figure and multiply it by the number of returned troops who may be suffering from PTSD. Almost 2 million men and women from all service branches have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The academic studies of PTSD cited in the Rand report include estimates of the true incidence of PTSD among Iraq veterans that range up toward 20 percent. A 2004 study in the New England Journal of Medicine said that 19.9 percent of Marines deployed to Iraq and 18 percent of Army troops deployed to Iraq may suffer from “broad definition” PTSD.

When a soldier with PTSD is diagnosed with a less serious illness, his benefits may very well be reduced dramatically.  PTSD is often the result of witnessing bloodshed or nearly dying and is often linked to combat. But if a soldier’s injury is more vague, like anxiety disorder — the condition the Fort Carson psychologist on Sgt. X’s tape said he was being pressured to diagnose in soldiers instead of PTSD — a soldier may struggle to prove that an injury occurred as a result of the war and lose out on tens of thousands of dollars in benefits. A soldier suffering from anxiety disorder may receive some disability benefits, but almost certainly will not receive benefits that total 50 percent of base pay.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of the advocacy group Veterans for Common Sense, said that when soldiers with PTSD are booted out of the Army without a proper rating for PTSD, they are essentially shortchanged for their service in the wars and left to fight with the Department of Veterans Affairs for benefits. “That’s a national disgrace and top military leaders should be ashamed of their actions,” Sullivan said, adding that his organization continues to fight for the creation of a truth commission to explore the Bush administration’s spin for going to war in Iraq, the former president’s management of the war and what he says is “routine denial” of mental healthcare to those who fought in the war.

Together, the need for combat troops and the desire to control costs create what David Rudd, chairman of the Texas Tech department of psychology and a former Army psychologist, calls “huge institutional pressures” for the Army to ignore PTSD and the psychological impact of war whenever possible. “The military is not geared to treat psychiatric illness,” Rudd said. “They continue to have difficulty accepting the psychological costs of war.”

Rudd sees this same state of denial in the military’s reaction to the most obvious and disturbing consequence of seven years of war — escalating suicide rates among ground troops. Last year, 140 Army soldiers committed suicide, which was the highest rate on record.

Last month, the Army announced that the trend continues. Forty-eight soldiers have already killed themselves this year. If that pace is not slowed, at least 225 soldiers will be dead by their own hands by the end of 2009.

Top military officials, however, continue to fluctuate between admitting that combat stress might be one in a series of factors leading to suicides to categorically denying any correlation between war and suicides.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month, Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s vice chief of staff, stated, “We are at war, and we have been at war for the past seven-plus years. That has undeniably put a strain on our people and equipment.” But he blamed the spike in suicides on other factors, such as marital discord, family disagreements, legal, financial and work problems.

Rudd said those kinds of statements become “a little bit more deceptive-looking each month these [suicide] numbers go up.” Lurking behind the Army’s denial, he said, is the fear there won’t be enough boots on the ground in Iraq. “We were not ready for a five-to-six-year campaign,” said Rudd. “We were ready for a two-month deal.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Apr 10, VCS in the News: What Motive Does the Army Have to Misdiagnose PTSD?

Apr 8, Army Doctor Caught on Tape: Military ‘under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD’

Editor’s note: Last June, during a medical appointment, a patient named “Sgt. X” recorded an Army psychologist at Fort Carson, Colo., saying that he was under pressure not to diagnose combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Listen to a segment of the tape here.

April 8, 2009 -“Sgt. X” is built like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle he rode in while in Iraq. He’s as bulky, brawny and seemingly impervious as a tank.

In an interview in the high-rise offices of his Denver attorneys, however, symptoms of the damaged brain inside that tough exterior begin to appear. Sgt. X’s eyes go suddenly blank, shifting to refocus oddly on a wall. He pauses mid-sentence, struggling for simple words. His hands occasionally tremble and spasm.

For more than a year he’s been seeking treatment at Fort Carson for a brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, the signature injuries of the Iraq war. Sgt. X is also suffering through the Army’s confusing disability payment system, handled by something called a medical evaluation board. The process of negotiating the system has been made harder by his war-damaged memory. Sgt. X’s wife has to go with him to doctor’s appointments so he’ll remember what the doctor tells him.

But what Sgt. X wants to tell a reporter about is one doctor’s appointment at Fort Carson that his wife did not witness. When she couldn’t accompany him to an appointment with psychologist Douglas McNinch last June, Sgt. X tucked a recording device into his pocket and set it on voice-activation so it would capture what the doctor said. Sgt. X had no idea that the little machine in his pocket was about to capture recorded evidence of something wounded soldiers and their advocates have long suspected — that the military does not want Iraq veterans to be diagnosed with PTSD, a condition that obligates the military to provide expensive, intensive long-term care, including the possibility of lifetime disability payments. And, as Salon will explore in a second article Thursday, after the Army became aware of the tape, the Senate Armed Services Committee declined to investigate its implications, despite prodding from a senator who is not on the committee. The Army then conducted its own internal investigation — and cleared itself of any wrongdoing.

When Sgt. X went to see McNinch with a tape recorder, he was concerned that something was amiss with his diagnosis. He wanted to find out why the psychologist had told the medical evaluation board that handles disability payments that Sgt. X did not, in fact, have PTSD, but instead an “anxiety disorder,” which could substantially lower the amount of benefits he would receive if the Army discharged him for a disability. The recorder in Sgt. X’s pocket captured McNinch in a moment of candor. (Listen to a segment of the recording here.)

“OK,” McNinch told Sgt. X. “I will tell you something confidentially that I would have to deny if it were ever public. Not only myself, but all the clinicians up here are being pressured to not diagnose PTSD and diagnose anxiety disorder NOS [instead].” McNinch told him that Army medical boards were “kick[ing] back” his diagnoses of PTSD, saying soldiers had not seen enough trauma to have “serious PTSD issues.”

“Unfortunately,” McNinch told Sgt. X, “yours has not been the only case … I and other [doctors] are under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD. It’s not fair. I think it’s a horrible way to treat soldiers, but unfortunately, you know, now the V.A. is jumping on board, saying, ‘Well, these people don’t have PTSD,’ and stuff like that.”

Contacted recently by Salon, McNinch seemed surprised that reporters had obtained the tape, but answered questions about the statements captured by the recording. McNinch told Salon that the pressure to misdiagnose came from the former head of Fort Carson’s Department of Behavioral Health. That colonel, an Army psychiatrist, is now at Fort Lewis in Washington state. “This was pressure that the commander of my Department of Behavioral Health put on me at that time,” he said. Since McNinch is a civilian employed by the Army, the colonel could not order him to give a specific, lesser diagnosis to soldiers. Instead, McNinch said, the colonel would “refuse to concur with me, or argue with me, or berate me” when McNinch diagnosed soldiers with PTSD. “It is just very difficult being a civilian in a military setting.”

McNinch added that he also received pressure not to properly diagnose traumatic brain injury, Sgt. X’s other medical problem. “When I got there I was told I was overdiagnosing brain injuries and now everybody is finding out that, yes, there are brain injuries,” he recalled. McNinch said he argued, “‘What are we going to do about treatment?’ And they said, ‘Oh, we are just counting people. We don’t plan on treating them.'” McNinch replied, “‘You are bringing a generation of brain-damaged individuals back here. You have got to get a game plan together for this public health crisis.'”

When McNinch learned he would be quoted in a Salon article, he cut off further questions. He also said he would deny the interview took place. Salon, however, had recorded the conversation.

On the tape and in his interview with Salon, McNinch seemed to admit what countless soldiers not just at Fort Carson but across the Army have long suspected: At least in some cases, the Army tries to avoid diagnoses of PTSD. But McNinch did not directly address why the Army discourages these diagnoses, in either the interview with Salon or the tape-recorded encounter with Sgt. X.

The answer probably has to do with money. David Rudd, the chairman of Texas Tech’s department of psychology and a former Army psychologist, explained that every dollar the Army spends on a soldier’s benefits is a dollar lost for bullets, bombs or the soldier’s incoming replacement. “Each diagnosis is an acknowledgment that psychiatric casualties are a huge price tag of this war,” said Rudd. “It is easiest to dismiss these casualties because you can’t see the wounds. If they change the diagnosis they can dismiss you at a substantially decreased rate.”

A recently retired Army psychiatrist who still works for the government, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said commanders at another Army hospital instructed him to misdiagnose soldiers suffering from war-related PTSD, recommending instead that he diagnose them with other disorders that would reduce their benefits. The psychiatrist said he would be willing to say more publicly about the cases and provide specific names, but only if President Obama would protect him from retaliation.

 

Salon has dubbed the soldier in this article Sgt. X because he asked not to be identified for fear that it might affect the medical evaluation process meant to gauge his level of disability. He was highly reluctant to speak, but agreed to do so after learning Salon obtained the recording and other information about it from a medical worker at Fort Carson and a congressional aide.

The sergeant spoke with Salon in the presence of his Hogan & Hartson attorneys who are helping him to secure a proper disability discharge from the Army for PTSD and a brain injury, diagnoses now affirmed by independent doctors. Sgt. X never planned to go to the media — he says, if asked, he will not talk further about the recording with news organizations.

Sgt. X probably received his traumatic brain injury when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle buckled in an explosion during his second deployment to Iraq in 2005-06. It was the worst of a handful of nearby blasts he’d survived, and it knocked him unconscious for 30 seconds.

When Sgt. X regained consciousness, he saw that the toes of another soldier had been sheared off. The tank hull had buckled and the inside had filled with smoke. Some of his fellow soldiers were soaked in blood..

Even after that, as a point of pride, the crew insisted on accompanying their disabled tank back to their headquarters. Besides causing his brain injury, the blast had exacerbated an injury to Sgt. X’s hip, but he faced the problem with little complaint. He numbed the pain with Motrin. “You don’t report problems,” he said. “It’s a stigma.”

When Sgt. X returned from the war to Colorado Springs, though, he had a problem with anger. After he terrified his young son by screaming at him, Sgt. X’s wife suggested he seek help.

Nearly breaking into tears while recounting the screaming bout to Salon, Sgt. X said he agreed to his wife’s request and sought mental care for the first time in his 16-year military career. Sgt. X, like so many others on the post, went to the fourth floor of Evans hospital in search of mental-health assistance.

There is some evidence that Sgt. X’s experience with McNinch represents part of a broader scandal, as suggested by the former Army psychiatrist who told Salon about identical problems at another post. Last year, VoteVets.org and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released an e-mail from Norma Perez, a psychologist in Texas, to staff at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility there. In addition to the Army, that department also provides veterans with benefits. “Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out,” Perez wrote in the e-mail dated March 20, 2008. She suggested the staff “consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder.” As opposed to those with PTSD, veterans with adjustment disorder, a temporary condition, typically do not receive disability payments from the government.

Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fired a letter off to the V.A. about that previous controversy, calling the e-mail “outrageous,” demanding an investigation. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee last June held a hearing on that e-mail. Perez claimed she sent that e-mail “to stress the importance of an accurate diagnosis.” End of story.

VoteVets.org and CREW, the two groups who unearthed the V.A. e-mail, reacted viscerally to this new tape obtained by Salon. “This is further evidence our troops are not receiving the mental health treatment they need and deserve,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW executive director. “The president and congressional leaders must hold those responsible accountable and make sure the message is sent far and wide that our returning troops are to be diagnosed as their symptoms, not the military’s finances, dictate.”

“We’ve heard all kinds of stories from vets who had trouble getting PTSD diagnoses,” said VoteVets.org Chairman John Soltz. “It’s crucial that we have department-wide investigations at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to determine if this came from someone high up, and how many troops and veterans were jilted out of a proper diagnosis from the government.”

Many publications, including Salon, and even some government agencies have documented other instances of reluctance to recognize mental wounds caused by war at bases across the country.

    * A recent weeklong series in Salon showed how apparent resistance to identifying combat stress ends up grinding down the lowest-ranking troops, sometimes with deadly results. Those articles included, for example, the story of Pvt. Adam Lieberman, who suffered with severe symptoms of PTSD. For two years, the Army blamed his problems on a personality disorder, anxiety disorder or alcohol abuse but resisted diagnosing him with PTSD until after his suicide attempt last October.
    * The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, last October questioned why 2,800 war veterans were labeled with personality disorder diagnoses, another cheap label the Army has been accused of plastering on soldiers instead of PTSD.
    * In November 2005 the Department of Veterans Affairs halted a review of 72,000 veterans who receive monthly disability payments for mental trauma from war. The department wanted to make sure the veterans were not faking their symptoms. Salon first exposed the review that August. Then Daniel L. Cooper, the V.A.’s undersecretary for benefits, told Salon at the time that, “We have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of the rating system and to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going to those who deserve and have earned them.”  The department stopped the process a month after a Vietnam veteran in New Mexico, agitated over the review, shot himself to death in protest. .
    * In early 2005, Salon exposed a pattern of medical officials searching to pin soldiers’ problems on childhood trauma instead of combat stress at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Salon will explore Thursday how the Army was made aware of Sgt. X’s tape, how the Senate Armed Services Committee declined to conduct an investigation, and how the Army absolved itself of any blame for wrongdoing. A unit of the Army’s Medical Command (which oversees Fort Carson’s Department of Behavioral Health) conducted an “informal” investigation last summer that found potential “systemic” problems that could influence diagnoses, but determined that no one in the Army’s Medical Command was to blame. In a report dated July 28, it specifically found that no Fort Carson or Medical Command staff “attempted to coerce or otherwise influence” diagnoses. This directly contradicts McNinch’s statements on the tape and in his interview with Salon.

If you are aware of a soldier who has served or is serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts and is having trouble getting a PTSD diagnosis or proper benefits, please contact Mark Benjamin at mbenjamin (at) salon (dot) com.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Apr 8, Army Doctor Caught on Tape: Military ‘under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD’

Apr 6, Book Review: VA Deputy Secretary Nominee Scott Gould and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes Publish Book on Improving Federal Workforce

The Government’s People Power Problem

Imagine Jim, a 49-year-old federal worker in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jim does the best he can, working long hours to process disability compensation claims for veterans, but the backlog is growing. He needs training on new software, a travel budget to learn about smart pilot programs outside Washington and authority to work with nonprofit groups so that he can learn new techniques and identify potential hires.

Alas, Jim has none of those things. So the backlog grows longer, and Jim grows frustrated.

Now imagine thousands of Jims scattered throughout dozens of federal agencies, and you understand what keeps Linda J. Bilmes and W. Scott Gould up at night. In their new book, The People Factor, Bilmes and Gould offer the archetype of Jim and argue that antiquated hiring systems, the wave of baby-boomer retirements and talented young people’s lack of interest in civil-service jobs are conspiring to produce a “malfunctioning,” low-tech, low-innovation federal government — precisely when we’re asking it to do more than ever before.

Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard University, and Gould, a vice president for IBM Global Services, say that the government should emulate companies such as Proctor & Gamble and Pfizer by investing heavily in its key asset: people. Firms that emphasize recruiting, training and evaluation — often a bureaucratic backwater — and that reward personal initiative show stronger financial performance. The authors praise recent human resources reforms at the Defense Logistics Agency and the Government Accountability Office to show that it can happen in government, too.

Bilmes and Gould estimate that investing $21 billion over 10 years in the government workforce would save $225 billion to $600 billion in improved productivity, reduced waste and fraud and stronger supervision of outside contracts. Not a shabby return, if they’re right.

We may have a chance to find out. Gould is slated to become deputy secretary of the VA, in charge of day-to-day operations. But as he said in Senate testimony last Tuesday, “Transformation of large organizations is hard work, rarely ever complete.” Maybe he’ll figure out a way to cut down the backlog for veterans’ claims — and help Jim at the same time.

Posted in VA Claims Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Apr 6, Book Review: VA Deputy Secretary Nominee Scott Gould and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes Publish Book on Improving Federal Workforce