Dec 6, VA News: President-Elect Obama to Announce New Secretary on Sunday, Dec 7

Obama to Announce Pick for Veterans Affairs

December 6, 2008 (Bloomberg) – President-elect Barack Obama will announce his choice to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs tomorrow at a news conference in Chicago, according to a Democratic aide.

Obama’s pick will join him at the press conference scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. Chicago time, to commemorate the 67th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, according to the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Possible choices to lead the department include Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran who lost a 2006 bid for Congress and serves as director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs; former U.S. Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, a disabled Vietnam veteran who led veterans affairs under President Jimmy Carter; Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, an Iraq War Veteran.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese planes attacked the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, leaving more than 2,400 servicemen dead and destroying most of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The surprise strike drew the U.S. into World War II.

Obama has moved quickly to fill out his Cabinet. He’s named New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, New York senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Commerce secretary. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will remain at the Pentagon, and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano will head Homeland Security. Obama named former Justice Department official Eric Holder as attorney general.

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle has accepted Obama’s offer to become Health and Human Services secretary, though the selection hasn’t been formally announced.

Obama said Nov. 26 he’s seeking a combination of “experience with fresh thinking” for his cabinet.

Cabinet secretaries are subject to Senate confirmation, once they are formally nominated, after Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Gates won’t have to undergo reconfirmation as defense chief.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Chicago at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Dec 6, VA News: President-Elect Obama to Announce New Secretary on Sunday, Dec 7

Dec 6, Chairman Akaka and Chairman Filner Support General Shinseki as New VA Secretary

December 6, 2008 – The chairmen of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees Saturday strongly endorsed President-elect Barack Obama ’s choice of retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department.

Obama’s announcement was expected to come Sunday during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” News of the appointment leaked out earlier Saturday after the interview was taped.

“Gen. Shinseki is a great choice; he is well aware of the needs of our veterans and will make an excellent secretary of Veterans Affairs,” said Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka , D-Hawaii. “I have great respect for Gen. Shinseki’s judgment and abilities. I’ve worked with him in the past and I look forward to working with him in the future.”

Bob Filner , the chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, echoed Akaka’s sentiments.

“His past leadership as chief of staff in the Army coupled with his brave service as a four-star general will bring a new energy to the department and bring hope to our veterans,” said Filner, D-Calif. “I look forward to working with Gen. Shinseki and the Obama administration to restore the sacred trust with our nation’s veterans and provide the care and benefits our veterans deserve.”

The nomination of Shinseki — whose name had not been floated publicly before Obama’s interview — revitalizes a career that was set back by the Bush administration in 2003, when he retired after four years as Army chief of staff. His relationship with then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was widely regarded as cool, and he incurred the wrath of many administration officials when he publicly predicted U.S. military forces would need several hundred thousand more troops to invade Iraq, defeat Iraqi forces and stabilize the country than Rumsfeld wanted to use.

“He was right,” Obama told NBC.

Like Obama and Akaka, Shinseki is a native of Hawaii. A veteran of the Vietnam War, he also was U.S. Army commander in Europe and head of the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia-Herzegovina during his 38-year career.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Dec 6, Chairman Akaka and Chairman Filner Support General Shinseki as New VA Secretary

Dec 6: President-Elect Obama Names Retired Army General Eric Shinseki as VA Secretary

6:19 PM ET, December 6, 2008, Retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki will be introduced tomorrow as President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, a Democratic official familiar with the announcement said today.

Obama confirmed the nomination in an exclusive interview with NBC News, taped for broadcast on “Meet the Press.” Obama called Shinseki “exactly the right person who is going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home.”

Shinseki, a 38-year veteran, is best known for his four years as Army chief of staff, and in particular his response to congressional questioning in February 2003 about troop levels necessary to protect a presumed military victory in Iraq.

Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” could be necessary, an assessment that was at odds with the announced determination of Pentagon leaders.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reacted by telling reporters that Shinseki’s estimate “will prove to be high,” and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz called the assessment “way off the mark.”

Three years later, Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command and the chief architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq, told the same Senate committee, “General Shinseki was right.” And in January 2007, President Bush ordered tens of thousands of U.S. troops back into Iraq to stabilize and secure the country.

Obama concurred with Abizaid’s view in the “Meet the Press” interview, saying of Shinseki, “He was right.”

Shinseki retired in the summer of 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad. Neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz attended his farewell ceremony.

Notably Shinseki led the Army at the same time that Obama’s nominee as national security adviser, then-Marine commandant Gen. James L. Jones. Both questioned Wolfowitz’s presumptions, before the war in Iraq commenced, about how the fighting would go, and they argued that Pentagon planning was being too optimistic and should prepare thoroughly for worst-case scenarios.

The politics around the planned nomination are intriguing. Shinseki has maintained a near-total silence since leaving the Pentagon. However, earlier this year, a letter he wrote to Rumsfeld in June 2003 leaked. In it, Shinseki criticized Rumsfeld for not letting the Joint Chiefs of Staff “express their best military judgment as often as they should.” He also said that the way Rumsfeld and other top civilian officials ran meetings was “unhelpful.”

Also, there long has been speculation inside the Army that Shinseki, who was severely wounded in Vietnam, is interested in running for the Senate when Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), an 84-year-old World War II veteran, decides to retire.

Shinseki, a 66-year-old native of Kauai, told the Associated Press in 2005, “I intend to move back to Hawaii. It’s just a question of when.”

Since retiring from the Army, he has joined the boards of Honeywell International and Ducommun, both companies focused on military contracting. He also is on the board of the Hawaiian companies Grove Farm Corp. and First Hawaiian Bank.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Dec 6: President-Elect Obama Names Retired Army General Eric Shinseki as VA Secretary

Obama Chooses to Stay the Course on Foreign Policy

December 5, 2008 – Monday’s formal announcement that Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, and Robert Gates will remain as Secretary of Defense, can hardly have caught anyone by surprise. Rumors were rampant that Clinton was the front-runner for the job for over two weeks, and Gates’ name was in the mix from the beginning. It is surprising, however, that President-elect Obama’s search for personnel to fill the top foreign and defense policy posts in his new administration has placed such a great emphasis on experience and continuity. Obama should revisit his apparent presumptions: Nowhere is change more needed than in U.S. foreign policy.

It should be obvious to the president-elect that experience is not synonymous with good judgment. After all, his own lack of experience did not block his path to the Oval Office, and might ultimately have cleared the way. Wisdom and insight might actually be impeded by years of working in the same field, exposed only to the canon of the profession. New faces and a fresh perspective are particularly welcome in old, tired industries that have run out of ideas. That certainly applies to Detroit automakers, but they are hardly alone: all companies are forced to change course if their products don’t fulfill customer’s expectations.

Or at least they should be. But the Washington foreign policy community ran out of ideas years ago. The clearest indication of that was is its embrace of the Iraq War, which won the backing of left-leaning think tanks and academics, and 29 of 50 Senate Democrats. Many of those same people, incredibly, will be running foreign affairs in the next administration.

Experienced Washington hands on both the left and the right have resisted calls to bring our troops home from Iraq. They clamor for new and better ways to build foreign countries and fight other people’s wars. Beyond-the-beltway Americans, meanwhile, want to build our own country, and bring an end to our own wars. Despite the fact that policy wonks are still marketing products that Americans no longer want to buy, they, like the carmakers, continue to wield great influence.

There was a chance that Obama might cut them off. He was not part of the Washington policy community in the fall of 2002 when he spoke out against the Iraq War. His outsider status may have helped him see that the war was likely to be more costly and time-consuming than the advocates for war predicted. His inexperience did not prevent him from recognizing that the war would aid al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts and undermine U.S. security.

Ever since, Obama has rightly worn his opposition to the Iraq War as a badge of honor. His principled stand, taken at a time when few people — in Washington or out –were willing to do the same, allowed him to turn his opponents’ (first Clinton’s and then McCain’s) supposed advantage in foreign policy into a liability, or at least a nullity. If experienced politicians could support a war that now two-thirds of all Americans believe to have been a mistake, then experience is overrated.

The ideal combination, of course, is both good judgment and experience. A few Washington insiders with many years of foreign policy experience had the wisdom and courage to vote against the Iraq War resolution. Anyone who was willing to challenge the dominant assumptions in the fall of 2002 should be expected to carefully scrutinize all aspects of U.S. foreign policy today.

That scrutiny is badly needed across the board, from our dealings with Iran and Pakistan to relations with Russia and China. The American people expressed their desire for change by choosing Obama as their next president, and they expected that change in the Oval Office would also translate into major course corrections at the Pentagon, at Foggy Bottom and in the NSC.

Unfortunately, the president-elect’s decision to turn to a cadre of insiders who refused to speak out against the Iraq War before it began, and who have since deflected calls to end the mission in a timely fashion, suggests that we will only get more of the same. And that means that President Barack Obama is likely to look more favorably on Iraq-style wars than he did as an Illinois legislator in 2002.

Christopher A. Preble is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of the forthcoming book The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Obama Chooses to Stay the Course on Foreign Policy

Murray Calls for Increased TBI Screening and Research After Study Reveals Long Term Toll on Service Members

December 4, 2008, Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a study on the long-term health consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The IOM study concluded that various forms of TBI are associated with long-term health problems including dementia, Parkinson’s-like symptoms, seizures, and problems related to socialization and unemployment.

“This report clearly shows that TBI, in all its forms, will affect our service members far into the future and that more needs to be done to help them today. It also provides a blueprint for the work needed to address the signature injury of the Iraq War.

“In the coming Congress, I will be working with the Obama administration to implement the recommendations outlined by the Institute of Medicine, including increased TBI screening and research. Because while TBI is often an invisible wound, with battlefield tracking and improved research we can shine a light on possible exposures and get people the help they need sooner.

“Veterans struggling with headaches, memory loss, depression and the other effects of TBI are often confused and unsure of where to turn. They deserve to know that we are taking every step to reach out to them, track their health problems, and provide the very best treatments available.”

For more information on the Institute of Medicine’s study visit: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/4683/60519.aspx

A recent RAND study revealed that of the over 1.64 million service members who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, 19.5{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}, or about 320,000, reported experiencing a probable TBI during deployment. The study also found that 57 percent of those that had likely experienced a TBI had not been evaluated by a physician for a brain injury.

Senator Murray’s Work:

As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Murray has worked to provide billions in increased funding for research and treatment for TBI and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Murray Calls for Increased TBI Screening and Research After Study Reveals Long Term Toll on Service Members

Deciphering Today’s Signature War Injury

December 2, 2008 – The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought the American military some unpleasant surprises, prominent among them the vicious effectiveness of cheap, small armaments such as mines, roadside bombs, and rocket-propelled grenades. But the soldiers, commanders, and strategists in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only ones struggling to adapt.

Across the nation, in hospitals, clinics, and doctor’s offices both military and civilian, health care providers are facing unprecedented challenges in dealing with these weapons’ results. Among the most puzzling is a set of injuries widely considered a medical “signature” of this conflict, and one that raises clinical and scientific questions thus far unanswered.

This is the combination of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. TBI is a force to the head that damages the brain and impairs its function, with the extent and kind of harm depending on the exact location and scope of the injury. PTSD is a terrifying and often disabling anxiety disorder caused by the experience of violent trauma.

Any blast powerful enough to cause TBI is also powerful enough to cause PTSD, so a high—though unknown—percentage of the many exposed to blasts suffer from both. The scientific literature finds that “anywhere form 20{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} to 60{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d}” of blast victims have PTSD, says Maxine Krengel, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs Poly Trauma Network Site in Boston. “It’s huge.” The circumstances of the “event itself” indicate TBI, Krengel says. For example, “did the somebody have a loss of consciousness? If so, for how long?” At least mild TBI is therefore also very common.
Many Questions

A major clinical challenge is that the symptoms of the two conditions overlap—although the conditions are very different in their natures—making diagnosis often “very, very tricky,” Krengel says. TBI causes physiological damage to brain tissue that can result in cognitive deficits and reduced emotional control, among many other problems. PTSD is a learned connection between a traumatic event and a set of responses, which can include nightmares, flashbacks, and constant anxiety and can lead sufferers to alcohol, drugs, and even suicide. But the two conditions share many markers, including sleep disruption, irritability, personality changes, difficulty concentrating and remembering, depression, and more.

To add to the complication, the presence of one condition can interfere with the treatment of the other. And to make things even more uncertain, the type and extent of the brain damage caused by the compression wave of a blast appears to differ considerably from the injuries that form the basis of current scientific understanding of TBI.

“Most of the TBI research has been done in survivors of either motor vehicle accidents or sports injuries—a quarterback [who] gets knocked unconscious” or a driver who hits his head against the steering wheel, says Matthew Friedman, MD, PhD, Executive Director of the National Center on PTSD and professor of psychiatry at Dartmouth medical school. “But the real question that a lot of people are raising is, given the tremendous impact of an explosion, can it really compare to the impact of even a 350 pound defensive end knocking you to the ground? Even though that’s pretty bad, is it anything to compare to a bomb blowing up your Humvee and killing the person sitting beside you?”

Beyond a difference in strength of the impact, Krengel adds, the percussive wave of an explosion acts differently on tissue than an ordinary blow. “The blast impacts the air-filled cavities in the body, every air-filled cavity,” she says. “It’s different in different areas and also depending on how close you are to the blast.”

What is known about the impact of blasts on the brain essentially comes from animal models. “But in the animal literature there is a difference in what the connectivity looks like”—in other words, how the brain’s parts work together—”in blast injury versus traumatic brain injury, that we are typically used to seeing,” Krengel says.

“And then the second piece is that so many of these people have had more than one blast injury,” Friedman continues. So the crucial but as yet unresolved scientific question, he says, is “How generalizable is the sports injury or motor vehicle accident to what is coming into Walter Reed or VA hospitals these days?”
Figuring Out How to Help

The point is not just to study the problems with more science, but to find the best ways of helping suffering human beings, Friedman and Krengel emphasize. “We have two fabulous treatments for PTSD,” says Friedman. “These are evidence-based treatments and…vigorous review recently by the Institute of Medicine has verified their effectiveness.” One treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy, uses systematic, Socratic challenges to thinking about the traumatic experience to help patients restructure their thinking. The other, exposure therapy, breaks the Pavlovian connection between the event and the response with guided confrontation with the troubling memories. Beyond that, several medications help control the symptoms, though they do not resolve the basic issues. If medication is used alone, the symptoms return when treatment ends. Successful psychotherapy, however, permanently frees people from the terrors of PTSD. Which type of psychotherapy works better in a given case depends on the individual, but, Friedman says, in tests of otherwise normal individuals, both overall “perform extremely well and equally well.”

There are no drugs approved for TBI, although some appear to provide some benefit. They are not, however, the same drugs useful for PTSD.

But blast victims very often also have some degree of TBI, and depending where and how it damaged the brain, TBI can reduce the effectiveness of either or both of the two best PTSD treatments. Cognitive damage can impair the intellectual resources needed for cognitive behavioral therapy. The loss of emotional inhibition caused by brain injury can make a person unable to tolerate the emotional stress involved in exposure therapy. Mild TBI very often resolves over time, potentially allowing psychotherapy to work, but clinicians do not consider waiting a sound option because, as Friedman says, “six months is a long time to suffer.”

An additional potential complication is that a damaged brain may not tolerate medications very well. There are no drugs approved for TBI, although some appear to provide some benefit. They are not, however, the same drugs useful for PTSD.

A number of studies and proposals are underway, many of them sponsored by the VA or the Department of Defense, Krengel says, noting that, “The VA system is developing treatment modules or manuals to treat the pain issues, the PTSD, the depression.” Whether sufficient resources have been devoted to studying these conditions is a matter of opinion. But, Friedman notes, “It’s probably going to be a few years until we have definitive data. What I can tell you is that we understand the challenge and research is ongoing.”

Until the big questions get answered, “the challenge is to figure out what to do for these folks. We have some good stuff on PTSD, other [work] on TBI. The question is how applicable, how useful is it going to be for this more complicated situation. Can we utilize what works in the less-complicated cases and how much are we going to have to improvise?” At present, clinicians are improvising ad hoc modifications to treatments to make them more usable by individuals with impairments, while waiting for research to provide more answers.
Is It Enough?

Beyond these questions of basic knowledge and treatment are large issues of access to appropriate care. Although the VA maintains a number of specialized polytrauma centers in various parts of the country for dealing with complicated cases, for an unknown but undoubtedly large number of veterans distances can be large and waiting times long. People with mild TBI and PTSD can be “quite ambulatory and they’re going to walk into primary care clinics, psychiatric clinics” throughout the nation, Friedman says. They often show up with vague symptoms such as headaches or sleep disturbances. Many providers lack even the understanding of the conditions found in more specialized facilities. That’s why, he says, primary care doctors and mental health providers across the country need to be educated about these conditions and told that “anyone who has been in uniform should be asked about the different kinds of exposures they’ve had.”

For now, though, untold numbers of service members and veterans who have experienced blasts are suffering, often without knowing why. And PTSD can strike months or years after a traumatic experience. “You might be in a blast and you have to immediately go back to your job,” Krengel says. “You can sort of keep it together while you’re busy, busy, busy, but after you’re home for a while, people say, ‘Wait, I’m not functioning the way I should be.'”

The experience of a blast may therefore be a time bomb that goes off long after the traumatic event. Unless and until researchers and clinicians answer the crucial questions and effective care is readily available from military, veteran, and civilian providers, it should surprise no one that many who served in today’s wars continue to feel their effects long after the conflicts end.

Washington, D.C. science journalist Beryl Lieff Benderly contributes the monthly “Taken for Granted” column on labor force and early career issues to the website of Science magazine and articles to other major magazines and websites.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Deciphering Today’s Signature War Injury

Editorial Column: Veterans Deserve Better

December 5, 2008 – At first glance, the reports of document shredding and consequent dismissal of the director and five top managers from the New York regional office of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs might appear to be simply one more instance of misconduct in an ever-expanding web of agency misdeeds. The shake-up at the New York regional office, however, speaks volumes about some of the most intractable, systemic problems plaguing the VA benefits process.

As Rick Weidman, executive director for government affairs of Vietnam Veterans of America, indicated during a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing last month, document shredding, whether in New York or elsewhere, is merely one illustration of a far broader lack of institutional integrity at the VA. Without addressing the underlying question of how this institutional culture might motivate and reward such individual misdeeds, neither Congress nor the agency itself will be in a position to effect real change.

Why might VA personnel find incentive in destroying, misplacing or simply ignoring claims documents?

To begin, the VA claims application process is a uniquely time-consuming one, hobbled by requirements that exist at neither the Social Security Administration nor private insurance companies. Driven by a staunch presumption that veterans’ claims are fraudulent, the VA requires all applicants to prove by documentary evidence not only that they are disabled but also that their disabilities stem directly from military service.

This system is as labor-intensive for reviewers as for claimants themselves. Nationwide, the VA’s backlog now numbers over 900,000 claims. According to the VA, one-third of claims at the New York regional office take six months or longer to process. This figure, however, takes into account both disability and pension claims, the latter of which can be completed in under an hour. Without the counterbalance offered by pension claims, the VA’s figure falls far short of the actual wait time for disability claims, which often exceeds one year.

The claims process is especially protracted for veterans with psychological wounds. Deeming post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms “relatively easy to fabricate,” the VA Clinician’s Guide directs examiners to base the validity of claims on elaborate documentation from family and friends about veterans’ changes pre- to post-service, which can be difficult and time-consuming to procure – especially when a veteran’s health is in question. Veterans routinely find their claims denied or remanded because the regional office says it has insufficiently detailed information – though one of the diagnostic criteria for PTSD is an inability to recall important aspects of a trauma.

These problems are further compounded by an institutional work credit system that equates productivity with the number of cases processed, effectively offering employees an incentive to take shortcuts to clear their desks of pending claims.

The VA also gives its employees the benefit of the doubt if they claim that they have never received a particular document that the veteran maintains he or she has submitted. Often, VA reviewers will deny claims based on such “missing” information.

The resulting misconduct has been alarmingly persistent: The same Manhattan regional office currently under investigation was cited 25 years ago for disposing of thousands of claims files at the bottom of its elevator shaft.

While the stated goal of the VA management to digitize the application process by 2010 is an admirable first step, much more remains to be done. Some advocates have proposed withholding credit for processed cases until the final stage of review, in order to encourage accuracy over speed. Others have suggested waiving the requirement that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans diagnosed with PTSD or traumatic brain injury (TBI) prove that the disability stems directly from military service. Akin to the policy for Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange exposure, this would curtail the application timeline for the most vulnerable claimants.

A third option might be to provide interim benefits for veterans with claims pending beyond a designated period – a form of relief requested by Vietnam Veterans of America in its recently filed lawsuit. Ironically, the Social Security Administration, which has never imposed a proof requirement for claimants – and hence takes less time to process claims than the VA – has just announced plans to further expedite its own TBI claims, including those of veterans.

Regardless of which particular path it pursues, the VA cannot continue to address the misdeeds of its personnel as isolated episodes. By failing to recognize the systemic nature of such misconduct and introduce a correspondingly far-reaching remedy, the agency dishonors the sacrifices borne by the veterans it is meant to serve.

__________

Rachel Natelson is director of the Veterans and Servicemembers Project at the Urban Justice Center, which provides legal services for current and former members of the U.S. military.

Posted in VA Claims Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Editorial Column: Veterans Deserve Better

Dec 5, VCS on the Radio: Paul Sullivan Discusses Gulf War Illnesses

December 5, 2008 – This week on CounterSpin: For years veterans claiming to suffer from Gulf War Syndrome were derided as cranky and hysterical by the department of defense and even by some journalists. Will that change now that a definitive report says the Gulf War illnesses are real, incurable, and caused by toxic materials used by the U.S. military during the 1991 Gulf War? We’ll talk to Paul Sullivan, a veteran and the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

To listen to CounterSpin, please go to this link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3658

 

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Dec 5, VCS on the Radio: Paul Sullivan Discusses Gulf War Illnesses

U.S. Mulls Unusual Tactic as Blackwater Charges Loom

December 4, 2008 – Blackwater Worldwide guards involved in a deadly Baghdad shooting of Iraqi civilians in 2007 could face mandatory 30-year prison sentences.

People close to the case say the Justice Department could prosecute the guards under an anti-drug law, even though drugs were not involved.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 law calls for 30-year prison terms for using machine guns to commit violent crimes of any kind, whether drug-related or not.

Blackwater’s guards, hired to protect U.S. diplomats, were responding to a car bombing when a shooting erupted in a crowded intersection. Blackwater insists its convoy was ambushed by insurgents. Witnesses said the guards were unprovoked.

Charges could be announced as early as Monday.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on U.S. Mulls Unusual Tactic as Blackwater Charges Loom

Scenarios – How Could Mumbai Attack Affect Afghanistan War?

December 5, 2008 – Attacks on Mumbai have fueled concerns that rising tension with India will divert Pakistan’s attention from fighting insurgents in its western tribal areas who are infiltrating Afghanistan to stage attacks on U.S., NATO and Afghan forces.

Here are some potential consequences of the Mumbai attacks for the Afghanistan war and the fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

* PAKISTAN REDEPLOYS TROOPS TO ITS EASTERN BORDER

Washington is trying to defuse tensions that could lead to a redeployment to eastern Pakistan, which could ease pressure on the tribal-area militants in the west.

International forces in Afghanistan have been quiet about contingency planning, but Pakistan has sharply denounced any cross-border attacks by U.S.-allied forces against the militants, a big hurdle to increased U.S. military activity in western Pakistan.

An alternative is to seek cooperation from tribal leaders — who also have chafed at the Pakistani army presence — to expel insurgent fighters. This could work better than an army crackdown, said David Kilcullen, who has served as a counterterrorism adviser to U.S. Gen. David Petraeus and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has spoken with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari since the attacks, and the leaders are to meet again in Turkey on Friday. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zaher Azmi said: “We are hopeful that the issue and difficulty do not reach that stage (of a relocation of Pakistani troops). Our expectation is cooperation in the fight against terrorism.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Scenarios – How Could Mumbai Attack Affect Afghanistan War?