Our weary warriors
It’s amazing the amount of deluded thought we project toward our fighting forces; we’re still efforting to think of them as Rambo … or some altruistic combination of Mother Teresa and Dr. Livingston, bringing kindness, crayons and Vitamin C to a pitiful rag-tag population in need [I’m flashing on flat soccer balls, here.] I think those of us in the “reality sector” can agree that we don’t have either time or troops for the second, while the first speaks to America’s love affair with testosterone.
The sad truth is that IF they come back whole in body and/or mind, they face hurdles they aren’t equipped to handle … easier, some have said, to remain in a Hellish war zone, where at least they understand the expectations of the system. In Iraq they’re a Band of Brothers — at home, they’re one more statistic looking for a way to break free of their past.
And those “happy ending” stories we occasionally see [the one about the girl who married her childhood sweetheart even though his face was melted away, complete with wedding pictures and interviews, comes to mind] are the exception to the rule. Too many returnee’s come back to strained relationships and stressed households that have struggled without them, who find the person returned to them entirely different than the one who left. Statistics put about 1000 Iraqi Vets homeless and on the streets at this point.
I am familiar with one such household that has become a daily horror show — and frankly, I just don’t know when, or if, there will be light at the end of their tunnel. Will there be a “normal” for them? I pray. What will their lives look like in five years, ten? What price will their children pay?
We owe them better, don’t we. We exploit their patriotism, use them up and then pretend they aren’t our friends and neighbors suffering broken hearts and lives.
Here’s a collection on our warriors — you know all this, but since the Troops are the focus of our tussle, the center of our storm [bring ‘em home, make ‘em stay, send more of ‘em, quack quack quack!] it’s our duty to know where they stand and how they’re being treated.
Note: General Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs has indicated that our military is exhausted and near broken, unprepared to fight any additional threat to our security and that it will take years to mend. This will likely NOT play out as deterrent should Dubby choose to take on Iran … he will switch his attention to Navy and Air Force warriors who have not done the majority of the heavy lifting in recent years.
Below — how Walter Reed patients have been bullied and silenced since the report came out, first. Then reads on the Vets shameful rating system, GI’s petitioning Congress for the end of war, Lt. Watada’s new trial and a report on our lowered recruiting standard and the possible consequences.
BRING ‘EM HOME!
Jude
Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet
Kelly Kennedy, Army Times
Wednesday Feb 28, 2007
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m ., and that they must not speak to the media.
“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training.
Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.
They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access.
The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed. And 120 permanent-duty soldiers are expected to arrive by mid-March to take control of the Medical Hold Unit, the soldiers said.
As of Tuesday afternoon, Army public affairs did not respond to a request sent Sunday evening to verify the personnel changes.
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed. ++
Critics: Army Holding Down Disability Ratings
Kelly Kennedy, Army Times
Saturday 24 February 2007
The Army is deliberately shortchanging troops on their disability retirement ratings to hold down costs, according to veterans’ advocates, lawyers and services members, and the Inspector General has identified 87 problems in the system that need fixing.
“These people are being systematically underrated,” said Ron Smith, deputy general counsel for Disabled American Veterans. “It’s a bureaucratic game to preserve the budget, and it’s having an adverse affect on service members.”
The numbers of people approved for permanent or temporary disability retirement in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have stayed relatively stable since 2001.
But in the Army - in the midst of a war - the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000.
The Army denies there is any intentional effort to push wounded troops off the military rolls. But critics say many troops being evaluated for possible disability retirement accept the first rating they are offered during their first informal board - but that if they were to request a formal board, and then appeal the decision of that board, they would receive higher ratings.
The system is complicated - “unduly so,” the Rand Corp. think tank said in a 2005 report - and the counselors who advise troops often have insufficient training or experience. Service members also assume that after months spent in a war zone, the military will look out for them, critics say.
Those who try to navigate the process beyond their initial evaluation - to include hundreds of combat veterans in limbo at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington - face long waits, lost paperwork and months or even years away from home as they try to complete the process. If they receive a rating of above 30 percent, they receive disability retirement pay, medical benefits, and commissary privileges. Those rated under 30 percent receive severance pay and no benefits.
Many eventually give up and take their chances with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which may give a higher rating for the same disability.
But under the separate disability payment systems of the Defense Department and the VA, a higher VA rating does not necessarily translate into more money - and forgoing military disability retirement also means giving up lifetime commissary and exchange privileges, military health care and other benefits.
While the number of soldiers placed on permanent disability retirement has declined in the past five years, the number placed on temporary disability retirement - with medical conditions that officials rule might improve so they can return to work over time or worsen to the point that they must be permanently retired - has increased more than fourfold, from 165 in 2001 to 837 in 2005.
Troops on temporary disability leave convalesce for 18 months while receiving reduced basic pay. After 1½ years, they are reevaluated and either returned to duty, or rated for separation or permanent disability retirement, or sent back to temporary disability for another 18 months - up to five years.
Along with paying them reduced wages during that time, the eventual reevaluation often leads to downward revisions in their disability ratings - and lower disability payments.
Service members’ conditions must be deemed stable before they receive a permanent disability rating, unless they are rated at less than 30 percent. In that case, they are discharged with severance pay - whether they are in stable condition or not. If their conditions then worsen, they’ll receive no more money from the military.
Compared to the overall size of the defense budget, disability retirement costs are relatively small. In 2004, the military paid more than $1.2 billion in permanent and temporary disability benefits to 90,000 people, the GAO said.
That does not include the costs of lump-sum severance pay - up to 24 months of basic pay - given to 11,174 disabled troops that year in lieu of disability retirement pay. The Pentagon was unable to provide data on severance costs, the GAO said.
Officials with the Army’s Physical Disability Agency say there is no ploy to save money and that troops going through the process are treated well.
“There is absolutely no attempt on the part of the Army or this agency to deny soldiers any disability benefits or to push them off on the VA,” said Col. Andy Buchanan, the agency’s deputy commander.
Adjudicators “are committed to ensuring all disability decisions are made fairly and accurately and based on the evidence in the soldier’s medical record,” he said. “We have never received any guidance, official or otherwise, from anywhere within DoD to limit findings for budgetary or other reasons.”
In 2005, Ellen Embrey, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force health protection and readiness, told House lawmakers the reason for the comparatively large numbers of troops placed on temporary disability was actually to keep end strength up. A premature medical evaluation board decision, she said, “may negatively impact the individual’s ability to continue serving.”
“I Couldn’t Believe It”
Smith said he began hearing tales about two years ago of service members who said they were not getting proper disability ratings based on the VA Schedule for Rating - the document used by both the military services and the VA to determine percentage ratings for disabilities, which in turn sets compensation rates.
“I finally decided to take on a case myself,” Smith said. “It’s been a while since I took a case.”
He found an Army captain whose radial nerve in his right arm had been destroyed in Iraq - the same injury that has left Bob Dole, the World War II veteran and former Kansas senator, unable to use his arm to do more than hold a pen.
Smith followed the captain through the physical evaluation board process. He said that under the ratings schedule, this was an easy call: 70 percent disability. But at his first informal medical evaluation board, the captain initially was offered just 30 percent, and he had to fight to raise it to 60 percent through a subsequent formal evaluation board and then a final appeal.
“His first offer … I couldn’t believe it,” Smith said. “I was just incensed.”
Many troops accept the first rating offered them at their initial informal evaluation board, Smith said. “Soldiers are trained. When the evaluation board says, ‘This is what you get,’ the soldiers say, ‘Yes sir.’ A lot of people don’t appeal.”
Dennis Brower, legal advisor for the Army’s Physical Disability Agency, acknowledged as much, saying only 10 percent of soldiers request a formal board.
But when the Army wouldn’t budge on raising the captain’s rating above 60 percent, Smith took the case a step beyond where most soldiers can go.
“I called the adjutant general and said I wanted a meeting,” Smith said - and added that if he didn’t get one, he was “going to Congress.’ ”
That was in January. He got his meeting. He has demanded that the Army’s Physical Disability Agency look for patterns of incremental increases in disability ratings as troops move through the process, and how closely their ratings match what the VA schedule mandates.
Smith is still waiting to hear back, but suspects the pattern will show that a large proportion of troops with less than 20 years of service - who don’t already qualify for retirement - are rated at under 30 percent, the threshold for being considered for disability retirement pay and all other military benefits that come with it. Many of those troops instead receive one-time, lump-sum disability severance pay that is much lower in value than lifetime retirement compensation.
Pentagon spokesman Marine Maj. Stewart Upton said the disability retirement process is being looked at.
“We are in the midst of a business-process review that will generate improvements to program effectiveness, including timeliness goals for processing cases and standard definitions of start and end points as well as other metrics to ensure that progress can be accurately measured over time against common metrics,” Upton said.
“We are especially concerned with a balance of what constitutes prompt adjudication, while maintaining reasonable flexibility within the system to ensure recoveries are not inappropriately rushed.”
Fit for Duty?
Army Lt. Col. Mike Parker was diagnosed with reactive arthritis, which causes painful swelling and eventual calcification of the joints. He was put on drugs that suppress his immune system, but kept on active duty - even though his medication must be refrigerated and he must remain near specialized medical care.
With a suppressed immune system, there is no chance of him being deployed, much less to a combat zone. “If I get shot, it’s not good,” he said.
Though pleased that he could continue to serve, he wondered how a medical evaluation board could find him fit. After he talked to a dozen other service members from all branches with similar diagnoses of reactive arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, he realized they were all evaluated based on different criteria. He produced hundreds of pages of medical records, letters and rulings to support his claims.
Some were handed disability ratings that would provide them with the $20,000 in drugs that they would need for the rest of their lives, while others were told they had preexisting conditions and given no benefits. Still others - including some with medical evidence proving otherwise - were told that because their diseases had improved and would not worsen, their disability ratings were based on the idea that they had improved from chronic illnesses that, in reality, could worsen.
Parker began making calls - to lawmakers, doctors, veterans’ groups and the media. He sought out troops having problems and offered to help them through the process, piecing together medical paperwork to make sure people got what they deserved.
He said he has seen case after frustrating case of the services ignoring their own rules. For example, an evaluation board is supposed to provide “clear and unerring evidence” for a ruling that a particular condition was preexisting - but Parker said that often does not happen.
He cited a Marine who had received a 10 percent disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder from a Navy physical evaluation board - and was later rated at 50 percent for the same condition by the VA, using the same ratings schedule and the same medical records.
Unrelated to Service
In May 2003, Army Cpl. Richard Twohig was thrown from an armored personnel carrier in Iraq. The 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper landed on his head, said his lawyer, Mark Waple, of Fayetteville, N.C.
Twohig suffers headaches at least once a week that last up to 14 hours, as well as short-term memory loss, and is dependent on pain medication.
“This is well substantiated by his doctors - Army medical doctors,” Waple said.
But his physical evaluation board rated him only 10 percent disabled for another injury because he had no substantive proof the headaches were a result of the accident - even though regulations call for evaluation boards to give troops the benefit of the doubt in such instances.
“I believe it is budget-related,” Waple said. “I believe that there is a feeling the service member should turn to the VA for both their health care and their veterans’ benefits.”
Twohig can’t work because of the disabling headaches, and even if he receives VA benefits, his family has lost its medical insurance. And if a physical evaluation board rules that injuries are not related to service or were preexisting conditions, troops are not eligible for VA benefits, either.
Waple said he began helping soldiers through the physical evaluation board process in the 1970s while he was still an Army lawyer, and he said he has watched the system change since the wars began in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The system “has become less friendly toward service members with compensable decisions on disability” in the past few years, especially since the war in Iraq began, Waple said.
“I think there is a definite bias on the physical evaluation board to medically separate service members with a zero-, 10- or 20-percent disability rating when it … should be medical retirement.”
Waple said he has about a dozen cases out of Fort Bragg, N.C., similar to Twohig’s.
Army Spc. Ruben Villalpando, who was featured in the Military Times coverage of the problems at Walter Reed, said that since the stories were published, contractors have fixed the elevator in Building 18 - the facility where troops on “medical hold” are housed - and have inspected each room to determine what needs to be fixed.
But more importantly to him, a Judge Advocate General lawyer looked at his case after he filed a complaint that he received no disability rating because his depression was ruled to have existed prior to his enlisting.
Villalpando said he became depressed because his cousin, a Marine, was electrocuted while they were both serving in Iraq. He has been at Walter Reed for just over a year.
“The JAG wanted to know how they knew it was existing prior to service if they didn’t have my medical records,” Villalpando said.
He has appealed that decision, and his appeal is still pending. “I’m keeping my fingers crossed,” he said.
A Complicated Process
Brower, the Army disability agency’s legal advisor, said part of the problem is that service members don’t understand how the process works. For example, he said a soldier who carries a notepad because of short-term memory loss will not be rated for that disability because he can function. But if he loses a foot, he would be rated for that.
“There’s no need to compensate” for the short-term memory loss because it “didn’t end your military career,” he said. “The foot did. We compensate for the loss of a career.”
And Upton said soldiers have plenty of opportunity to appeal.
“Service members are afforded due process to ensure their cases and concerns can be fairly considered whichever direction they choose,” he said. “Service members also have rights of appeal at specific points in the process should they disagree with their rating.”
Buchanan, the Army Physical Disability Agency’s deputy commander, said the system is not as bad as government reports have led people to believe.
“It really is a fair process,” he said. “It’s wide open. We have nothing to hide.”
Buchanan also said he had “no visibility” on the costs related to disability retirement pay, so he doesn’t know if the budget is going up or down.
He said he gives medical evaluation board adjudicators one instruction:
“Do the right thing. That’s the guidance I give them.” ++
Demoralizing the Troops
Tina Richards, t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Monday 26 February 2007
Demoralizing the troops …
Those were the words that inspired me to challenge Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in a Senate hearing a few weeks ago. Those were the words that echoed so loudly in my mind I couldn’t - no, I wouldn’t stay silent.
Demoralizing the troops …
Today I had to drop off Polly, a friend who flew out to help me this last week in DC with my occupation project (details at website http://grassrootsamerica4us.org/ ), at the Baltimore airport. When we arrived, the majority of customers waiting in line were soldiers. All were in desert cami’s. Instantly, I thought of the days when I saw my son off to war dressed in those same cami’s and tears came to my eyes. I think the second-to-worst event for a mother is seeing her son off to war, unknowing if he’ll return. The worst is when he doesn’t return.
But these troops were smiling, relaxed and relieved. Sitting down for a cup of coffee before Polly’s flight took off, we were mixed in a sea of beige and brown. A conversation started about returning to family and where home is for each. One soldier was from Springfield, Missouri. “Missouri? Well, I’m from Salem,” I said. The soldier’s family was from Salem, Missouri, and we quickly struck up a conversation. “Is the water tower still standing?” he asked. “Yes, right next to the high school,” I said.
He told me of his time in Afghanistan and how honored he was to be on Nancy Pelosi’s guard duty when she was there a couple of months ago. “She so small,” he said, “but a great lady.” You could see the grin on his face as he recalled stories about her. Proud to be on guard for the speaker of the House.
When I told him why I was in DC and not Missouri, he hung his head low and shook it back and forth. He told me of the year before when he was in Iraq. He told me about a buddy who was injured in an explosion. His friend was from Michigan and had dreamed his whole life of being a policeman, like his dad. Just before his dad had died of cancer, he had left him a knife. Not an expensive knife, but one with great sentimental value. As his fellow soldier was being evacuated, he asked him to hold onto the knife. “You never know what’s going to happen.” He wanted it safe. He promised to return it to his brother-in-arms.
He kept his promise. When they met up, his friend couldn’t move his arm from the battle injury. He couldn’t become a cop either. “Now he’s a security guard, making $10 an hour and has to pay for his own car and gas.” The VA only gave him 10 percent disability, $200 a month. “What kind of life is that?” the soldier asked me.
Demoralized? You bet. Not from photos in the Washington Post or Democrats and Republicans arguing about what direction to take. But from one soldier seeing how a fellow brother-in-arms is being treated by their own government after they honorably serve, risking life and limb, doing everything asked of them. Promises broken.
As Polly and I left, I told the soldiers we would keep fighting to ensure their brothers and sisters-in-arms would be taken care of, and work to make sure they get the time off to spend with their families. They smiled and thanked us. We welcomed them home.
You see, this morning I was disappointed because I was hoping to see my son on spring break. But he had decided to go on the Veterans for Peace Bus leaving Fayetteville, North Carolina, on March 17, heading down to New Orleans to help with reconstruction. I was feeling pretty useless and wasn’t sure if anyone wanted to hear from me. I’m just one voice.
But that café filled with soldiers, their thank yous and smiles that “we the people” are fighting for their rights, has given me encouragement to continue, no matter how small the one voice is. Because Polly’s voice working in Rochester, New York, to rally the youth to end the war; Chuck Smith in St. Louis, driving anywhere to support a fellow soldier who chooses to become a war resister; Gael and Medea with Code Pink, whose creativity inspires thousands of women throughout the world; Stacey Hafley from Columbia, Missouri, who is holding down the fort while her events coordinator is in DC; or the Mt. Rainier Neighbors UFPJ who share their homes with strangers working for peace; or Tom Seagar and Ruth Gilmore in Rolla, Missouri, who lead a vigil with five or six others every week. We are all important, bringing our different ideas, skills, talents, efforts, money and voices to end the war. One voice alone, I would be useless. But being united with thousands across this country makes us a force to be reckoned with. ++
Tina Richards’s son Cloy is a corporal in the United States Marine Corps who has served two tours in Iraq. For more information go to: http://grassrootsamerica4us.org/
GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War
Americans in the military have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in recent years, particularly in Iraq, where the casualties are mounting, the tours are being extended, and some of them have had enough.
Lara Logan, CBS Broadcasting Inc.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Correspondent Lara Logan heard dissension in the ranks from a large group of service members who are fed up and have decided to go public. They’re not going AWOL, they’re not disobeying orders or even refusing to fight in Iraq. But they are doing something unthinkable to many in uniform: bypassing the chain of command to denounce a war they’re in the middle of fighting.
“As a patriotic citizen who served two combat tours in Iraq, I just feel like this war, it’s simply just not working out anymore, and soldiers are dying there everyday,” says Specialist Kevin Torres.
Torres didn’t always feel that way—he enlisted in the Army right out of high school, after 9/11. He has twice served in Iraq, patrolling the mainly Kurdish north of the country, and carrying out combat patrols and goodwill missions.
“I joined because I just wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be a part of our generation’s war,” Torres says.
“You’ve been on two deployments and you didn’t always feel this way. Was there a point at which, you know, something you experienced that made you think,” Logan asks.
“Yeah. In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawija, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck. And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris outside of the truck. And we just had the truck was loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books. We just wanna help. And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience. Because we’re still getting killed out there,” he says.
It’s a sentiment echoed by all of the service members who are part of this protest.
60 Minutes gathered some of them in Washington, but they had to be off base, out of uniform and off duty to speak to Logan on camera.
They’ve all sent a petition, called “Appeal For Redress,” to their individual members of Congress, letting them know that “Staying in Iraq will not work” and it’s “time for U.S. troops to come home.”
“It’s not about speaking out against the military or speaking out against the war. It’s just, we’re here four years down the line and there’s not an end to it,” Sgt. Evans, one of the dissenters, tells Logan.
“What are we trying to accomplish over there? I mean, what is what are we trying to do in Iraq?” another soldier, Sgt. Ronn Cantu asks.
What does he think?
“I don’t even know anymore,” he tells Logan.
“Well, what would you say to the people that say, ‘Alright, it’s clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out’s not the answer. It’s only gonna get worse. There’s gonna be all-out civil war,’” Logan asks.
“How does that become the default? Either someday, we have to leave. We can’t stay in Iraq for the next thousand years,” one soldier remarks.
Asked if there’s a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job, Cantu says, “But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin.”
“That doesn’t seem worth it to you? Those are not good odds?” Logan asks.
“Yes. I mean, we volunteered to make a difference, not just be part of an experiment,” he replies.
The idea for this protest by active duty and reserve service members came from two enlisted men who served in the war: Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, who got to Iraq during the battle of Falluja, and his military commitment is up this winter, and Naval Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, who serves on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which was deployed in the Gulf during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
“I’m not anti-war. I’m not a pacifist. I’m not opposed to protecting our country and defending our principles. But at the same time, as citizens it’s our obligation to have a questioning attitude, you know, about policy,” Hutto says,
“Just because we volunteered for the military, doesn’t mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm, and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral,” Madden adds.
They say they’re permitted to express their opinions under a number of military rules, which the group lists. Among them is the 1995 Military Whistleblower Act. Although it prohibits them from speaking against the Commander in Chief or any of their superior officers, it does allow “Members of the Armed Forces…” to speak on their own behalf and “to make a protected communication to… Congress.”
“A senior officer in the Marine Corps said to me when I asked him about the Appeal, what was his opinion – and he served in both Iraq wars – he said, ‘I have a hard enough time getting young men to put themselves in harm’s way, without having to have men in uniform tell them it’s not worth it,’” Logan remarks.
“We’re not telling young men and women that it’s not worth it, to serve their country. We’ve served our country. The men and women who have signed the appeal have served their country. So those, we’re not saying it’s not worth it. We’re saying that, if you have reservations about it to communicate it. That’s simply what it is,” Hutto says.
“There are gonna be a lot of people who don’t like what you’re doing,” Logan says.
“By volunteering we’ve done more than about 99 percent of the population. And anybody who joined after 9/11 when the country was at a state of war, it’s my opinion that nobody has the right to question that soldier’s patriotism, nobody,” Cantu replies.
“There are going to be a lot of people listening to this who say that, ‘You’re a traitor. You’re betraying your uniform. You don’t deserve to wear it,’” says Logan.
“I hope there aren’t people that think that,” says Lt. Commander Mark Dearden.
For him, going public has been one of the hardest decisions of his life. He’s a combat surgeon who served during Operation Iraqi Freedom, returned for a second tour and now treats soldiers at a Naval hospital in California.
“The decision to come here for me personally was not an easy one. And I don’t expect it was for anyone. Last night I was with my family in the park in our town and it hit me that ‘At this very moment, while I’m standing here, people are fighting and people are dying.’ I’ve seen it with my own eyes. And I can feel it in my chest,” Dearden says.
Dearden acknowledges this is very hard for him and he also admits that it isn’t so much a protest as a plea.
According to a recent Military Times survey, many in uniform feel the same way. The poll found that for the first time ever more US soldiers oppose the president’s handling of the war in Iraq than support it.
Still, critics claim the group is partisan, just out to boost Democrats who oppose the war.
“I’m certainly not liberal, and I doubt many of the members on this panel are liberal. It’s not funded by any partisan organization. It’s soldiers. It’s service members. It’s grass roots. It’s us,” says Lt. Kent Gneiting.
White House spokesman Tony Snow has dismissed the protesters as an insignificant minority. “It’s not unusual for soldiers in a time of war to have some misgivings. You have several hundred thousand who served in Iraq. You have reenlistment rates that have exceeded goals in all the military,” he said.
Logan read to the group: “And then he goes on to say that it’s unfortunate that people like you – and the quote is – are ‘going to be able to get more press than the hundreds of thousands who have come back and said they are proud of their service.’”
Sgt. Cantu responds, “You got two right here who are gonna do multiple tours in Iraq and, you know, I’m reenlisting. I never said I wasn’t proud of my service. I fit some of those statistics right there myself.”
For many in uniform, there’s an unwritten code of honor that says no matter how tough your situation is or whatever your private doubts about the mission may be, you just never speak out publicly against it, and so for them what the service members of this campaign are doing is nothing short of a betrayal.
“That’s not something I would do personally,” a specialist remarks.
Logan spoke with soldiers from the 1st Cavalry who are currently serving in Baghdad. They acknowledged that the servicemen and women who signed the petition have the right to do so – but that doesn’t mean they should.
“I think every American soldier throughout history has wanted combat to stop,” a major remarked.
“As an American soldier I feel like we took an oath to obey the orders of our Commander in Chief and officers appointed over us,” Army Spec. James Smauldon adds.
“The war has been very difficult, the violence has not decreased at all, if anything it has gotten worse. Is there a part of you that sort of says, ‘Yeah I understand why someone feels like this?’” Logan asks.
“I know what I’m here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don’t sign up to pick which war you go to,” Army Capt. Lawrence Nunn replies.
What would Ronn Cantu say to that?
“We haven’t said that we’re not going to war. But the time this airs I’ll be back in Iraq,” he replies.
“We don’t get to choose the mission. Our leadership gets to choose the mission. Congress gets to choose the mission. My Congressman is Lacy Clay. I would like to tell him as a constituent of his, “Is this really – is this it?” Staff Sgt. Matt Nuckolls says.
“What do you mean, is this it?” Logan asks.
Says Nuckolls, “Is the mission in Iraq really what you want us to be doing? And then he responds, yes. Okay, well we go back to Iraq and keep doing what we’re doing.”
“We volunteer to make a difference, not just throw our lives away,” Cantu adds.
Sgt. Ronn Cantu served in the army before 9/11 and re-enlisted after the terrorist attacks. He was in Iraq in 2004 and was headed back when 60 Minutes interviewed him. Although he says he will follow whatever orders he’s given, he personally feels this war is no longer worth fighting.
He is a third generation military man in his family. “The third generation to have served, the first who made the decision to make the military a career,” he explains.
Asked if he thinks the petition could be career suicide, Cantu says, “Only time will tell.”
“You’re going back. Are you worried about what the consequences are going to be for you back there, when people know how you feel?” Logan asks.
“All I can do is just convey to those soldiers that I do not want them to die in Iraq and that I will do everything I can do bring them home safe,” Cantu says.
“Once you’re in that combat zone and once those bullets start flying it’s, all those politics are out the window. It’s not about foreign policy or what anybody says. It’s about the man to your left and to your right. And now you’re just out there defending each other,” Kevin Torres says. “Nothing will ever change that.”
Despite the fact that polls show the majority of the American public has turned against the war in Iraq, support for the troops remains high, even for soldiers like Specialist Torres, whose 101st Airborne was recently welcomed home with a parade near their home base at Ft. Campbell.
What did that mean to him when he returned home and saw the warm welcome?
“When you’re in Iraq you’re worried that you’re sort of forgotten. The only people that are really concerned with the war in Iraq are people who have family members or loved ones in Iraq. And when you come home and you see a town welcome you and, you know, set up a parade it’s comforting,” he says.
“What would you say to your children 30 years from now about the war you fought?” Logan asks.
“That I was just doing what my country asked me to do and I did it well,” Torres replies. ++
Silencing Soldiers
Sarah Olson, TomPaine
February 28, 2007
The Army refiled five charges against first Lt. Ehren Watada late last week, paving the way for a possible second court-martial for the highest-ranking member of the military to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. When his first court-martial ended in a mistrial on February 7, serious debate on the emerging opposition to the war within the military, the legality of the war and the right of military personnel to publicly disobey illegal orders had not yet begun to surface. Though it’s unclear that a second court-martial may legally proceed, the possibility brings these issues back into focus.
I was one of two journalists subpoenaed to testify in Lt. Watada’s court-martial. I objected on the grounds that members of the military must be free to speak with journalists without fear of retribution or censure. That so few critical voices in the military are given an ongoing platform in the media contributes to an inaccurate view of the Iraq War and erroneous ideas about how to ameliorate the problems. Supporting the troops requires that we listen to what they have to say.
Army Specialist Mark Wilkerson was just sentenced to seven months in prison for refusing to return to Iraq. Last year, he wrote:
-
In the year I was in Iraq, I saw kids waving American flags in the first months. Then they threw rocks. Then they planted IEDs. Then they blew themselves up in city squares full of people. … Hundreds of billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have all been wasted in this war. I feel as though many more soldiers want to say things like this, but are afraid of retribution, and who’s really listening anyway.
Ivan Brobeck, a Marine who went to Canada rather than return to Iraq, was released from prison on February 6, just in time for the birth of his first child. Army Medic Augustine Aguayo awaits a March 6 court-martial in Germany and is facing up to seven years in prison. He’s a conscientious objector who refused to load his gun during the year he spent as a combat medic in Iraq. Despite nearly three years attempted to have his conscientious objector status approved, Aguayo was ordered back to Iraq. When his commanding officers threatened to send him to Iraq in shackles, he climbed out his bedroom window and went AWOL into Germany. According to the Pentagon, there are at least 8,000 soldiers who have quietly gone AWOL, while hundreds more have gone to Canada.
The Appeal for Redress has received over 1,600 active duty signatures. The online petition says:
-
As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price.
And what began as a simple online petition has exploded into public dissent: Soldiers are attending anti-war demonstrations, holding press conferences. Liam Madden is one of the appeal’s founders, and embarked on a cross-country speaking tour just two weeks after being released from the Marines.
Last year’s Zogby poll showed that 72 percent of soldiers wanted to leave Iraq by the end of 2006. Opinion has not grown more sanguine. Though soldiers have stinging criticisms of the Iraq War, we rarely get to hear them. Instead, Lt. Watada is relentlessly juxtaposed with soldiers who have no apparent qualms about their orders.
When Lt. Watada announced his opposition to the Iraq War on June 7, 2006, many called him a coward. He took an oath, they argued, and must obey orders regardless of the war’s legality. Even those sympathetic to Lt. Watada’s beliefs sometimes appear uneasy with his public opposition to the war, especially when speaking to members of the press.
Whether members of the military should abandon individual responsibility when they go to war is a debate worth having. While they have agreed to certain speech restrictions—members of the military agree not to speak contemptuously about the commander-in-chief and Lt. Watada expressed himself respectfully, out of uniform, off base and after work hours—the extent of those limitations is by no means explicit. In fact, it is one of several questions in Lt. Watada’s prosecution. It seems that the specter of military law is so dark and mysterious a force that ordinary civilians have ceded their ability to question the authority of those that wield it.
Why is our civilian society so comfortable allowing the military to determine the parameters of acceptable speech during a time of war? Lt. Watada—along with the thousands of men and women who are returning from Iraq today—is uniquely positioned to speak about the military mission in Iraq. What do we lose when we allow the systematic exclusion of their voices?
The Iraq War is messy. It’s inconvenient. The absence of soldiers denouncing the war in mainstream consciousness likely has something to do with the public’s unwillingness to face the war itself. What does it mean if this war is actually illegal? In what ways is each of us complicit in the perpetration of a war not thoroughly vetted by the media, debated by congress, nor considered by the public? The starkness of these answers is reflected in the faces of the people returning from battle. But if we don’t hear from Ivan Brobeck, Mark Wilkerson, Augustine Aguayo and any of the hundreds of Iraq veterans return to the United States isolated and disillusioned, it’s easier to believe that everything is going just fine. ++
Lt. Watada-an American Hero
Ryan Elsey, Foreign Policy In Focus
on Monday, February 26, 2007
Lieutenant Ehren Watada is like many other Americans; as the intentions behind invading Iraq have become more obviously spurious, he has reshaped his perceptions of the war. He originally supported the war with so much vigor that he voluntarily enlisted in the Army, but he came to conclude that the Iraq War is both illegal and immoral. Unlike millions of his fellow Americans who have changed their minds he does not have the luxury of simply swapping out bumper stickers on his car. Instead, he faces potentially ruthless consequences.
After refusing to deploy to Iraq and publicly speaking out against the war, Lt. Watada faced up to seven years in a military prison. However, his recent court martial ended in a mistrial, and now it remains unclear whether he can even be tried again.
Looming Deployment
Assigned to Fort Lewis in Washington state, Lt. Watada faced a looming deployment to Iraq. As a leader, he began to educate himself before deploying. Ultimately, his conscience prevented him from partaking in the Iraq War because the hasty invasion four years ago ran counter to international law and was congressionally authorized solely because of misleading intelligence reports. Unqualified for conscientious objector status because he could not honestly claim opposition to all war, he asked for reassignment to a non-deploying unit and even requested to serve in Afghanistan. He then offered to resign his commission, but his inexorable chain of command was unwilling to act on any of his requests. So Lt. Watada took a drastic last step and held a press conference in June 2006, publicly announcing his refusal to fight in Iraq just weeks before his unit deployed.
He immediately became a symbol of courage within the antiwar movement. Drawing widespread support from many antiwar groups and public figures, he awaited the Army’s response. By August 2006, the Army recommended a court martial, based on charges of missing movement, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and contemptuous remarks about President George W. Bush. Shortly before the Army announced the charges, Lt. Watada appeared at the Veterans for Peace annual convention in Seattle. With dozens of members of Iraq Veterans Against the War standing with him in support, he suggested, “a radical idea . . . that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.” Once the Army learned of his statement, it tacked on an additional charge, bringing his maximum sentence to a possible seven years.
Storm of Controversy
His case has created a storm of controversy. As the trial approached, the Army planned to subpoena journalists, hoping to use them to verify Lt. Watada’s supposedly contemptuous statements, thus eliciting questions of freedom of the press and journalists’ roles in military investigations. The Army also moved to block the defense from discussing the war’s illegality, essentially preventing any defense. At the trial, the judge carefully steered the counsels and witnesses from making any mention of the war’s legal status, shielding the war from much needed legal scrutiny and refusing to consider Lt. Watada’s motivations.
Lt. Watada clearly disobeyed orders to deploy—he repetitively informed his chain of command and made a public announcement before carrying out his refusal to deploy. The importance of his bold action—both in terms of his courage and the legal mess in which he his is trapped—lays in why he refused to deploy. The war’s legal and moral implications served as the impetus for his refusal. Accordingly, the Army’s denial of any discussion of the war’s illegality was a denial of a fair defense.
A pretrial agreement solved some of the complications involved in the case. In exchange for dropping two charges, Lt. Watada admitted to making the statements he made in his June 6 press conference and at the Veterans for Peace convention. The Army also agreed to refrain from calling reporters to testify against him. However, leading up to Lt. Watada’s testimony during the trial, confusion surrounding the pretrial agreement resulted in a mistrial. The prosecution viewed the agreement as an admission of guilt, whereas the defense held it as a mere verification of the obvious: Lt. Watada refused to go to Iraq and made various public statements about his refusal.
March 19
A tentative new trial is set to begin on March 19, a symbolically important date as it will be four years from day the U.S. invaded Iraq. However, Lt. Watada’s lawyer is hoping to invoke the principle of double jeopardy to argue that a second trial cannot lawfully take place.
Just as many members of Iraq Veterans Against the War stood by Lt. Watada as he spoke before the Veterans for Peace convention, the organization stands by him now. Even though everyone in uniform is a volunteer, it is absurd to think that a contract can relinquish a human being of the responsibility to act in a just way. It is equally abominable to claim that service members should lack the right to free speech. Those who give up so much—time, energy, blood, sweat, and even their lives—to serve deserve the right to free speech more than anyone; service members have clearly given the most to earn free speech.
Service members of all ranks have the right to contribute to the public debate on any war and to provide a tempering voice when issues of war are discussed. They have perspectives that are vastly more valuable than armchair punditry. And when they are ordered to carry out unjust acts and fight in immoral wars, if they choose to resist, they at the very least have the right to a fair defense.
Yet, the Army is still attempting to prosecute Lt. Watada for speaking out about the Iraq War and for refusing orders. The silent majority of Americans opposed to the Iraq War must stand up and support Lt. Watada. Now is the time to praise the war’s objectors as equally as we have praised the heroes who have fought and died. If we all had Lt. Watada’s courage, we could finally facilitate an end to this war and steer our country toward a foreign policy based on cooperation, diplomacy, and a respect for international law. ++
Ryan Elsey is a recent veteran of the Army who is affiliated with Iraq Veterans Against the War, an organization composed of veterans from all branches of the military who have served since September 11th, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
Military Enlisting More Convicts: Lowering Moral Standards?
AP/ABC News
Feb. 14
As the military struggles to meet enlistment quotas, the services have been accepting a growing number of recruits with criminal records, including some with felony convictions.
The Army and Marine Corps are letting in more recruits with criminal records, including some with felony convictions, reflecting the increased pressure of five years of war and its mounting casualties.
According to data compiled by the Defense Department, the number of Army and Marine recruit needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.
The military routinely grants waivers to admit recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Overall the majority are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.
The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors, which could be petty theft, writing a bad check or some assaults, jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006. The minor crimes represented more than three-quarters of the moral waivers granted by the Army in 2006, up from more than half in 2003.
Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior. And they said about two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Marines are for drug use, because they unlike the other services require a waiver if someone has been convicted once for marijuana use.
Lawmakers and other observers say they are concerned that the struggle to fill the military ranks in this time of war has forced the services to lower their moral standards.
“The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards,” said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. “By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country.”
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he is concerned because the Pentagon data differs from Army numbers. But overall, he said, “anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review.”
“Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies,” Boyce said.
The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.
“The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we’re having meeting our military needs in this time of war,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.
Belkin said a new study commissioned by the center also concludes that the military does not have any programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life.
In recent years, as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military has also relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people whose scores on a standardized aptitude test are at the lower end of the acceptable range.
In its report, the Pentagon said, “The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military.”
According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of new military recruits needed some type of waiver in 2006, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.
The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses.
Because many states have different crimes categorized as a felony or misdemeanor, the groupings are more general.
About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver to enlist in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003.
In addition, the report showed that the Army granted substantially fewer waivers for drug use and serious traffic violations last year than in 2003.
More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements. Felony waivers made up about 2 percent of the Marine waivers, while other lesser crimes made up about 25 percent, both up slightly from 2003.
About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up only slightly from 2003. Two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Navy were for misdemeanor-type crimes and about 5 percent were for felonies.
Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003. Nearly all of the waivers were for the misdemeanor-type crimes. ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Add comment February 28th, 2007