Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
  • Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

    David Botti | Apr 29, 2008 10:41 AM
    More than half a century after the GI Bill was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this statement on his Website:

    The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11, 2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.

    In a profile of numerous veterans struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the current GI Bill stands now.  The problem is that these benefits can no longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier generations of veterans.

    Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

    About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

    An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.


    Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.
    More
  • Veterans Suing the VA, Senators Call for Resignation

    David Botti | Apr 23, 2008 09:57 AM
    A trial in U.S. District Court is now underway as a group of veterans challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs over the lack of care afforded to returning troops. The case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, is said by the plaintiffs' attorney to be the first of its kind.  Yesterday a suicide expert testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that veterans are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population. The American Lawyer has a good summary of what the case is all about:
    The suit claims that many disabled combat veterans are in dire need of counseling and other services they are not currently receiving from the U.S. government. Erspamer [the plaintiff's counsel] estimates that 120 veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan commit suicide each week. The veterans' groups are not seeking monetary damages but want reform of a health care system in which they allege a huge backlog of cases prevents veterans from receiving timely care.

    The San Francisco Chronicle outlined what suicide expert Ronald Maris sees as a complete lack of readiness within the VA to deal with the great number of veterans suicides:

    A majority of the VA's counselors, doctors, social workers and psychologists "don't have the tools and the information that they need to intervene effectively with suicidal vets," said Maris, a former president of the American Association of Suicidology who has been a consultant to the Army on suicide prevention.

    He was particularly critical of the VA's top health care administrator, William Feeley, who said in a pretrial deposition April 9 that the agency has no systematic national plan for suicide prevention. Feeley also said he was unaware of any methods of tracking veterans at risk of suicide and that suicide rates "are not a metric we are measuring."


    The impact of the trial is being felt in Washington, D.C. where two U.S. senators are now calling for the resignation of the VA's chief mental health official, Dr. Ira Katz.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is citing evidence learned in the trial showing that the VA withheld information on the rising number of veterans suicides.  As her statement reads:
    More
  • Advertisement
  • The "Stop-Loss" Continues

    David Botti | Apr 22, 2008 11:25 AM
    The army announced yesterday that the practice of "stop-loss," where a solider is held past his/her enlistment contract, should continue for at least another year. While military leaders are making efforts to reduce combat tour lengths, and increase the size of the army, the Associated Press reports there are roughly 12,000 soldiers serving under the stop-loss. The numbers break down to: "6,800 active-duty Army, about 3,800 in the Army National Guard and close to 1,500 in the Reserves."

    USA Today breaks down the numbers even further, putting the latest stop-loss news into a wider historical context:

    -In May 2007 the practice of stop-loss reached a three-year low of 8,540.

    -"Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March."

    -"Soldiers affected by stop loss now serve, on average, an extra 6.6 months...Key leaders at the small-unit level — sergeants through sergeants first class — make up 45% of those soldiers. Soldiers typically enlist for four-year stints."

    -58,300 soldiers have been affected by the stop-loss since 2002.

    People have often asked me what exactly a stop-loss is -- especially after they hear it referred to as the "back door draft."  First, USA Today offers this concise summary of how the army views the policy: "Stop loss can keep a soldier in the service if his or her unit deploys within 90 days of the end of the soldier's commitment. It is necessary, the Army says, to maintain the integrity of units headed to war."

    Second, I sometimes use the example of my own unit on the eve of the invasion into Iraq back in 2003.  Most of us in my reserve unit enlisted under a six-year contract.  That meant that for six years were would actively train with our home unit, and be subject to mobilizations if ordered by the president.  Afterwards, we would spend two years in the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) during which time we would not train, but would still "be on the books," in case the military needed more troops.

    In March 2003, when my unit got word it was heading to Iraq, a number of marines were reaching the end of their six-year contract.  Depending on how long we stayed in Iraq, their contract might end while they were over there.  It was these marines who were subject to stop-loss.  They were senior members of the unit whose experience would be invaluable during the deployment, and our company would be hurt if our numbers decreased.  So, they stayed and deployed with us; then left the military after returning home.

    Most did not complain about serving past their enlistment contract.  Their buddies were going to war, and the stop-loss marines wanted to go with them -- and, at that point, the war was still new.  Many felt they'd miss out on a major historical event that would go down in the history books.  But, times have changed, and the war is more than five years old.  As James Martin, a social work professor at Bryn Mawr College and retired Army colonel, told USA Today:  "These are the guys who bear the brunt of it. They just get put back into the grinder continually."
    More
  • 19 Percent of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets Suffer from Depression

    David Botti | Apr 17, 2008 01:22 PM
    A new comprehensive report by the RAND Corporation has concluded that 300,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from depression or PTSD--and only about half have sought out treatment, according to the Associated Press. The report surveyed 1,965 vets in what the AP calls the first large scale private study of its kind. The numbers show that 18.5 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan vets suffer from these these symptoms. According to RAND, possible solutions to temper these problems may be available:

    Among our recommendations is that effective treatments documented in the scientific literature — evidence-based care — are available for PTSD and major depression. Delivery of such care to all veterans with PTSD or major depression would pay for itself within two years, or even save money, by improving productivity and reducing medical and mortality costs. Such care may also be a cost-effective way to retain a ready and healthy military force for the future. However, to ensure that this care is delivered requires system-level changes across the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. health care system.


    The AP offered up more conclusions drawn from the study, including why vets are not seeking care:
    They gave various reasons for not getting help, including that they worried about the side effects of medication; believe family and friends could help them with the problem, or that they feared seeking care might damage their careers.

    The report also noted who is most susceptible to depression and PTSD, although, in the end, it is a vet's exposure to combat trauma that is the greatest predictor:
    Rates of PTSD and major depression were highest among Army soldiers and Marines, and among service members who were no longer on active duty (people in the reserves and those who had been discharged or retired from the military). Women, Hispanics and enlisted personnel all were more likely to report symptoms of PTSD and major depressions.

    Last November the Pentagon opened the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury in an effort to bring together education, treatment, and research.  From the Department of Defense:

    The center also will set standards and assess, survey and validate DoD programs, and decide, in part, how resources are directed... Center officials are reviewing hundreds of research project proposals that hope to claim a piece of the $300 million set aside by Congress last year for brain injury research. The office also will work with the military services to see which of the many programs funded with another $600 million from Congress are working and how to direct those funds to programs most beneficial to servicemembers and families.


    More
  • New Legislation For Female Veterans Care

    David Botti | Apr 3, 2008 11:12 AM
    A group of seven U.S. senators introduced legislation yesterday that would expand Veterans Administration care with programs focusing specifically on female veterans. According to the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, the bill would also mandate available counseling for female victims of sexual abuse and trauma. The news service reported:

    Two of the bill's sponsors, Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said they'd attended town hall forums for veterans where men were outspoken about their health problems, but women waited until after the meetings to whisper some of their concerns, including sexual assault.

    "Women don't have to whisper to me anymore," Murray said.


    The bill, titled the Womens Health Improvement Act of 2008, comes as the number of women using VA healthcare facilities is ever increasing.  According to a press release by Sen. Murray's office, the VA estimates female patients will double in the next five years.  The press release further quotes Sen. Murray:
    “As the Department of Veterans Affairs works to ensure that those who serve our Nation are not left behind, it is essential for them to recognize the physical, mental and reproductive health challenges that face women veterans may require a different menu of services, delivered in a different way than the VA has grown accustomed to."


    Writing on TheHill.com earlier this month,

    Approximately 70,000 women have served and separated from military service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). Among this group, in 2006 nearly 37.2 percent, or 25,960 sought and received healthcare from VA since separation from military service — up from 32.9 percent (15,903) in 2005. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the prevalence of potential Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among new OEF/OIF woman veterans treated at the VA from fiscal year 2002 to 2006 has grown dramatically from approximately one percent in 2002 to nearly 19 percent in 2006.

    Late last year in New Jersey, the VA opened its first sexual abuse treatment center focused exclusively on women.  The VA's 15 other sexual abuse treatment centers also provide for male patients.  As the Associated Press reported last October:

    “There’s a lot of women who have residential needs who I think are less likely to come to the VA because it’s literally spending 24-7 with guys,” Miklos Losonczy, one of two VA psychiatrists behind the creation of the treatment center, told The Sunday Star-Ledger of Newark.

    Losonczy worried that women veterans who need treatment might not be seeking it because “they think the VA is all men and wonder, ‘Why would I get my military sexual trauma treatment surrounded by men?”’

    For a detailed description on Military Sexual Trauma (MST), check out this info from the VA.

    More
  • An Exhausted Military

    David Botti | Apr 2, 2008 11:10 AM
    The Washington Post reports today on the decrease in readiness among U.S. ground combat forces. Not only are the soldiers and Marines worn down by continuous deployments, but tactically there are few available forces to respond other potential conflicts throughout the world. According to the Post, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the Senate Armed Services Committee:
    "When the five-brigade surge went in...that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army."

    Currently, Army soldiers serve 15-month overseas deployments with 12 months at home in between.  Marines serve seven-month deployments separated by another seven months.  For the Marine Corps (a much smaller branch of service than the Army) the fact that 3,200 Marines are now being sent to Afghanistan is considered by some to be severely degrading Marine assets.

    "There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our forces," [said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps], calling the current pace of operations "unsustainable."

    Magnus suggested that if more Marines are freed from Iraq they could also go to Afghanistan. Marines "will move to the sound of the guns in Afghanistan," he said. But he said it would be difficult to keep the force split between the two countries because the Marine Corps has limited resources to command a divided force and supply it logistically.

    The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said.

    The Post further reported that efforts to increase the number of soldiers and Marines will not translate into units able to provide operational relief until 2011.

    More
  • A Roundup of Iraq Anniversary Coverage

    David Botti | Mar 17, 2008 09:13 AM
    he fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is about to come upon us, and so too will an endless amount of media coverage on the issue.  Later in the week I'll be writing up some personal reflections on the anniversary, but today I've compiled some of the better anniversary stories that have already popped up.  First, take a look at NEWSWEEK's in-depth look at where the Army stands (plus these great video interviews with soldiers now in Iraq), and then see below for how other stories address the past five years.

    On Sunday The New York Times gave former Baghdad bureau chief John F. Burns a few column inches to give his take on where the war has taken us.  Burns penned this article at the war's outset which I've always considered to be an amazing piece of journalism.  For Sunday's article, Burns, who spent five years in Iraq, reflects on his position as a journalist covering he war, and on the larger meaning for both the U.S. and Iraq.  As his opening line puts it ("Five years on, it seems positively surreal"), Burns seems in awe of the course the war has taken; and frustrated over miscalculations that occurred.  He writes of watching the first U.S. air strikes from a Baghdad roof:
    ...from that first impact, among many on the roof, the mood was scarcely one of cool detachment, or at least not as cautioned as it might have been by the longer-term implications of what we were seeing. Part of it, no doubt, was the air show — the sheer, astonishing, overwhelming demonstration of power, more like an act of God than man, unleashing in those watching from the roof something approaching awe.
    More
  • The Latest Military Survey

    David Botti | Feb 28, 2008 12:01 PM
    Touting their new study as the most comprehensive survey of the U.S. military community in the past 50 years, Foreign Policy magazine is presenting the results of its discussions with more than 3,400 officers holding the rank of major, or lieutenant commander, and above.  Here is a brief sample of the survey's findings:

    These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether “the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military,” 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”

    The magazine also asked participants to rate the health of the branches of service on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning they are most concerned.  The Army came in highest with 7.9, followed by the Marine Corps with 7.0.  The average score for all for all four branches was 6.6.  The officers also said they would advise against waging a new war given the current state of the military.  Despite these findings, the survey also reported 64 percent of the participants characterized morale as high.

    The survey also asked officers their opinions on the governmental leadership of the nation.  On a scale of one to 10, with 10 saying they have a great deal of confidence, the study reports these numbers:

    • Presidency: 5.5 (16 percent had no confidence at all)
    • CIA: 4.7
    • State Department: 4.1
    • Veterans Administration: 4.5
    • Department of Defense: 5.6
    • U.S. Congress: 2.7

    To fix the state of the U.S. military
    , the study found 40 percent of participants say special operations capabilities should be expanded. In addition, there were more circuitous ideas:

    Above all, though, the officers are clear that the chances for victory do not rest on the shoulders of the military alone. Nearly three quarters of the officers say the United States must improve its intelligence capabilities—the highest percentage of any of the choices offered. Active-duty officers and those who have retired within the past year give a much higher priority to nonmilitary tools, including more robust diplomacy, developing a force of deployable civilian experts, and increasing foreign-aid programs.

    It's a fascinating study, and one that can help break down some uniform misconceptions people have of the military.  Now that this study is concluded, let's see a survey of 3,400 corporals and sergeants.
    More
  • Treating (or Not Treating) Mental Health Issues at NY Base

    David Botti | Feb 13, 2008 12:53 PM

    The Army's 10th Mountain Division located in Fort Drum, NY, has been the most deployed unit since the 9/11 attacks. A new report highlights an inadequate system in place at the Army base for treating soldiers with mental health issues. The report, published by the advocacy group Veterans for America, said soldiers can wait more than a month before seeing a proper health care worker.

    Fort Drum is located near the Canadian border. Its remoteness and harsh winter weather doesn't exactly provide the most uplifting setting for soldiers recently back from combat tours in Iraq. Veterans for America notes this as the report begins, offering a glimpse into the setting where PTSD can begin to surface among veterans:

    Generally speaking, winter conditions at Fort Drum are dreary, with snow piled high and spring still months away. More than a dozen Soldiers reported low morale, frequent DUI arrests, and rising AWOL, spousal abuse, and rates of attempted suicide.  Soldiers also reported that given the financial realities of the Army, some of their fellow Soldiers had to resort to taking second jobs such as delivering pizzas to supplement their family income.


    The report illustrates an atmosphere where lack of trained mental health professionals, combined with a military culture of keeping things to one's self, can leave many veterans going untreated. As the systems stands now, soldiers can easily provide false information on questionnaires designed to seek out those who need counseling. The most common way a soldier can received treatment is through self-referral. Furthermore:

    In meeting with Fort Drum Soldiers, VFA found a number of disconcerting examples of inadequate mental health care at Fort Drum. Some Soldiers reported that the leader of the mental health treatment clinic at Fort Drum asked Soldiers not to discuss their mental health problems with people outside the base. Attempts to keep matters “in house” foster an atmosphere of secrecy and shame that is not conducive to proper treatment for combat-related mental health injuries. 



    The New York Times profiled Eli Wright, 26, an Army medic based at Fort Drum. He described common episodes of flashbacks and shot nerves as routine occurrences. 

    Mr. Wright said he waited weeks at Fort Drum to see a mental health professional, who diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. He was prescribed medication and pointed toward group therapy, where, he said, “half the time the group is staring at the floor.” At times, he was taking two pills at once. “I couldn’t stay awake,” he said.



    A few weeks ago NPR broadcast a lengthy report in which it detailed a number of the same issues outlined in today's report.  One soldier said he felt like he'd been tossed aside like a pair of worn-out boots. Last week Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker was interviewed by NPR about what was detailed in its initial story:

    NPR: What do you say to these people who've had less help with their paperwork because of what you've described as a misunderstanding?
    SCHOOMAKER: So far — you're giving me new information, I wasn't aware that anyone has not gotten the best advice. If anyone out there feels that they didn't get the best advice, they need to come forward and let us know about that.

     


    Meanwhile, last Friday 19-year-old Pfc. Jack Sweet, a Fort Drum soldier, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
     

    More
  • In Advance of the War's 5th Anniversary

    David Botti | Feb 12, 2008 02:02 PM

    The fifth anniversary of the start of our war in Iraq is a little more than a month away. There will be retrospectives looking back to those early days of shock and awe, in addition to news analysis and the nation's self-reflection. Even a month out from the anniversary, conversations about the upcoming day seem to revolve around the same theme: "can you believe it's already been five years?"  It is a sobering thought.  And even if you believe in the war, or are staunchly at odds with its premise, five years is a unit of time to view not so much in length, but in the various phases that occurred.

    The summer of 2003, as I saw it, was a honeymoon period. The optimism for Iraq's future still ran high (at least in some circles), and at the same time I could see questionable expressions on the faces of Iraq's citizens as we patrolled past them. No one knew how it would all play out. Personally the fragile tensions that held together a shaky peace ended on November 12, when a suicide bomber destroyed the building in An Nasiriyah that at one time was my platoon's headquarters.

    Homecoming was also different. There were no VA scandals, or talk of PTSD, or advocacy groups comprised of Iraq veterans. We simply came home and quickly immersed ourselves back into civilian life. To watch how that has changed is to examine the evolution of the war in Iraq and on the home front. To ask a veteran about his or her experiences in Iraq yields not an overall glimpse into the war, but an occasion to see just one phase of it. This is what needs to be remembered as the anniversary coverage begins. I remember seeing soldiers entering Iraq July 2003 and feeling bad for them. They'd missed the defining war of our generation. They would spend a few months in post-invasion mopping up, and go home on the tail end of the operation. Of course, the irony in this cannot be overstated.

    We have enough perspective over five years to eschew generic "looks back" for a more nuanced analysis of how our country has fared over this time. It must be broken into phases: the invasion, the time surrounding 2004's battle for Fallujah, the grinding years of 2005 and 2006, the Abu Ghraib and Haditha investigations, and the controversial surge plan that's brought us to this point. At home the fascination with the invasion's pyrotechnics has given way to simply reading of the daily casualty figures ticking away over the news wires. There's also the trends in media coverage to consider, the heightened focus of home front veterans issues, and how artistic mediums have sought to portray the war and inform us.

    Looking back on the fifth anniversary means not so much seeing what happened, but understanding how we got to where we are today, and how driven we are to look at Iraq not simply as a war, but as a series of distinct eras.

    More
  • Vets and Defense Spending Through Proposed Budget

    David Botti | Feb 5, 2008 11:57 AM
    President Bush's release of his $3 trillion budget yesterday included a number of veterans' and military-related provisions. Here's a few of particular interest:

    Pay Increase:
    For 2009 the new budget seeks a 3.4 percent pay raise for current active duty service members. As the Military Times reports this is the minimum raise allowed under federal law--and some advocates are displeased with the projected numbers. Here's the paper's rundown of sample salaries for the troops in 2009:

    • An E-4 with more than three years of service now earns $1,949.10 per month; that would rise to $2,015.40 per month on Jan. 1 under the Pentagon plan.
    • An E-7 with more than 10 years of service now earns $3,263.10 per month; a 3.4 percent raise would turn that into $3,374.10 per month.
    • An O-3 with more than six years of service now earns $4,763.10 per month; that officer would earn $4,925.10 per month with a 3.4 percent pay increase.


    A Hospital
    Veterans in the Orlando, FL area are speaking out against what they perceive as the proposed budget's lack of funds for a local VA hospital.  As the Orlando Sentinel reports:

    President Bush put $120 million in his proposed budget Monday for the long-awaited Orlando VA hospital, but area veterans said they were disappointed that more of the nearly $600 million needed will not come right away.  Michael Kussman, undersecretary of health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, said $120 million is all the agency needs this year to begin work on the facility...But area veterans are not so trusting after waiting years for a hospital. Orlando is the largest metropolitan area in the country without a VA hospital, forcing veterans to drive to Tampa or Gainesville for care.

    "What a disappointment," said retired Air Force Col. Joseph Kittinger, a decorated veteran. "All of the politicians give lip service to the veterans, but that is all it is, lip service." He added, though, that the $120 million "is a start and better than nothing."


    Long-term
    The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America took a long-term look at where it sees facets of the budget allocated for veterans ultimately ending up.

    For veterans, the 2009 budget provides $47 billion in funding for veterans’ health care, benefits, and other services. This reflects a modest increase over 2008 levels. However, starting in 2010, the budget predicts sudden (and unrealistic) drops in costs for veterans’ care. The administration’s argument is that the deaths of earlier generations of veterans will reduce expenses, but this line of reasoning fails to account for the dramatic increase in the cost of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. This will push future budget expenditures up, not down. Like the budget as a whole, the long-term accounting in the VA budget is improbable.

    Defense Budget
    For the defense budget itself, USA Today provides a good summary of highlights covering where the money is intended to go:

    •Increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps: $20.5 billion, an increase of $8.7 billion or 73%, compared with 2008. This year, the Army would grow to 532,000 soldiers, and the Marine Corps would increase its ranks to 194,000. By 2012, the plan would be complete, with the Army topping out at 547,000 soldiers, while there would be 202,000 members of the Marine Corps.

    •Aircraft and weapons: $45.6 billion, a $4.9 billion increase, that would include purchases of fighter planes such as the F-22A Raptor and F/A-18 Hornet and unmanned aircraft like the Predator and Reaper.

    •Cyberspace security: The budget shows at least $65 million for research and development projects tied to computer security. Some elements of the effort are secret, and funding levels are not disclosed.

    •Pay and health care: $149 billion to increase salaries and fund health care. Military salaries would increase by 3.4%.


    For an overall political view of how things are shaking out, the Associated Press provides this quick piece on reactions to the budget.


    More
  • The Image of a Veteran

    David Botti | Feb 1, 2008 04:18 PM
    The current series in the New York Times on veterans who've committed murder has spurred tremendous debate over the way vets are portrayed by the media. To understand origins of the prevailing portrayals of our current veterans, it's a good idea to take a step back and view the issue in a historical perspective.

    Jerry Lembcke is a Vietnam veteran and professor of sociology at Holly Cross college in Worcester, Massachusetts. Lembcke's book "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam," looked in part at how the news media and pop-culture cultivated narrow portrayals of Vietnam vets. He has also written op-eds for the Boston Globe, Newsday, and the San Francisco Chronicle among others. In 1968 Lembcke was drafted into the Army, serving as chaplain's assistant before returning home and joining the anti-war movement.  

    I talked to Lembcke about how the Vietnam-era vets experience impacts that of those men and women coming home from war today -- and how he thinks the media is handling its coverage of veterans and issues associated with them.



    SOLDIER'S HOME: You've written that a veteran's behavior can be influenced more from how past vets were portrayed in pop-culture, as opposed to personal experiences he/she might have had.  How does this happen?


    LEMBCKE: The post-Vietnam popular culture representations of veterans was so powerful and so long lasting, and it so overwhelmed the war itself in popular culture, that as people began to come home during the Gulf War in the 1990’s, and present these same symptoms as Vietnam veterans coming back, I thought there’s a connection here. I think I used the phrase “learned experience,” and it occurred to me that this was a generation of veterans who’d grown up immersed in this popular culture of what it looks like to be a war veteran coming home.

    This was very different than the culture Vietnam vets grew up in. Looking at representations of WWII veterans for example, which was not nearly as powerful in film for example. We got more war films about WWII, but not so many films about veterans coming home.


    What is being portrayed in these kinds of movies that can influence veterans?
    More
  • The Latest Reports on Army Suicides

    David Botti | Jan 31, 2008 12:18 PM

    Yesterday we learned from the Washington Post of the record-breaking number of Army suicides during 2007. This is the latest edition of veteran suicide news that's made national headlines--further evidence that this is one aspect of the homecoming experience that isn't getting any better despite all the attention.The latest figures as reported by the Post:

    • In 2007, suicides among active-duty soldiers reached their highest point since the Army began keeping records in 1980.
    • 121 soldiers committed suicide in 2007, a 20 percent increase over 2006.
    • Attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries rose sixfold since the Iraq war began: there were 350 cases in 2002 compared to 2,100 in 2007.
    • Historically, suicide rates within the military decreases during wartime; the current trend is the opposite of that.
    • In 2001 the suicide rate was 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers--in 2006 the rate jumped to 17.5 per 100,000.
    • In 2007 twice as many soldiers committed suicide in the U.S. as they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.



    The Post provides this sober passage about a young Army reservist currently hospitalized after her suicide attempt:

    On Monday night, as President Bush delivered his State of the Union address and asked Congress to "improve the system of care for our wounded warriors and help them build lives of hope and promise and dignity," Whiteside was dozing off from the effects of her drug overdose.


    Taking a look at the issue of veterans suicides it's somewhat alarming to read this USA Today article from 2003. The language, the sense of urgency, the utter surprise in statistical findings can make one wonder if five years from now we'll still be reading the same type of articles--waiting for things to get better. The lead paragraph from the article could easily be substituted for a story about the current findings:

    Alarmed by the number of suicides among soldiers in Iraq, the Army has asked a team of doctors to determine whether the stress of combat and long deployments is contributing to the deaths.

    Everyone knows it's an issue. But, what can actually be done? Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org has this to say via the Huffington Post:

    One very simple idea that would have helped relieve the mental burden of our troops (short of finding a way out of Iraq), and help them get the care that they need, is to give them substantial time off between deployments. Spend two years in Iraq, spend two years at home. And, on the homefront, aggressively test, treat, and monitor troops for mental injuries...

    ...Even without dwell time, and a much deserved rest for our forces, we have got to be more diligent about mandatory and exhaustive screening of returning troops, and providing adequate care and monitoring.

    The Washington Post itself provides a summary of online reader comments for the article, and highlights particular entries.  Here's an excerpt:

    Our Readers Who Comment for the most part commend The Post and reporter Dana Priest for continuing to report on what happens to mentally and physically wounded soldiers returning from Iraq. They express sympathy for the individual around whom this story is built, call for a change in political leadership, improved patient car...Some contend that such reporting aids the enemy and question the patriotism of the journalist and her news organization. And, as sometimes happens, commenters take the opportunity to issue boilerplate condemnations of the Iraq War, some of which are anti-Semitic.


    With almost regular headline-making reports of the suicide issues it can sometimes get confusing where things stand.  Here are some key stories to revisit from 2007:
    OCTOBER 30 -- A study by the American Journal of Public Health reports findings that younger veterans are more prone to suicide. This is the opposite of suicide trends among the general public.

    NOVEMBER 13 -- CBS News concludes a five-month investigation into the "hidden epidemic" of military suicides.

    DECEMBER 12 -- The House Veterans Affairs Committee holds a hearing on how to stop veterans suicides.


    More
  • UK Ad Aims to Galvanize PTSD Awareness

    David Botti | Jan 25, 2008 11:01 AM
    When movie-goers in the United Kingdom sit down to watch the Iraq war movie "In the Valley of Elah," they'll first be greeted by a new advertisement by the organization Combat Stress: Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society. As the Guardian reports, Combat Stress was founded in 1919 to help WWI veterans recover mentally from shell-shock. Today, after growing concern over the lack of treatment available to today's veterans, Combat Stress is ramping up a public relations campaign to highlight the issue:
    Combat Stress is alarmed at the huge increase in veterans from the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, who come knocking on their door for help. A few are still turning up suffering long-term effects from the second world war and Korea. The oldest applicant for help recently was aged 100.

    What's their reasoning for this alarm?  Eight years ago 300 veterans sought help from Combat Stress; during the last fiscal year the number jumped to 1,000. The number of Falklands War vets who've committed suicide has risen to 300—more than the 256 British soldiers who were killed in the war itself. Of particular note is how many view the Iraq war's unpopularity in the UK as exacerbating vets' mental health issues. From the Guardian:
    The problems of veterans today are compounded by the widespread recognition through much of the army that the Iraq campaign is unpopular, nasty, unpredictable and brutal—and, in the views of a significant minority of soldiers and officers in private conversation, a pretty unnecessary conflict at that. In the first and second world wars, the plight of service personnel was shared by almost everyone in the land. More than 1 million soldiers served in Northern Ireland over 30 or so years, so that became part of the national experience.

    But combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a national experience, and the services are worried that they appear in the minds of many now to be detached from most of British national life. Though more American soldiers have been involved—more than 3,000 killed and nearly 50,000 injured, physically or mentally—Iraq is not a shared experience nationally for Americans in the way that Vietnam was.

    Combat Stress' advertisement doesn't hold back any punches, as it tries to impart what's going on behind the closed doors of veterans' homes:
    A well-trained fighting machine reduced to nothing more than an empty shell.  Combat stress is their calvary, the infantry to fight off their demons.  They were protecting you, now they need your help.

    You can view the advertisement here:

    More
  • In the News: Bill O'Reilly, Filmmaker Vets

    David Botti | Jan 24, 2008 03:18 PM
    The veterans advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America is ramping up its criticism against Bill O'Reilly's recent comments on homeless vets.  Users of IAVA's website can sign an online letter protesting O'Reilly's statement that:

    “They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there. Okay? … If you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”

    O'Reilly pulled presidential politics into the mix as well accusing John Edwards of using the homeless veterans issue for his own political gain.  Today a transcript from one of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memos" was published on the Fox News Website.  It referenced an exchange between Edwards and David Letterman:

    DAVID LETTERMAN: Tell me a little bit about your feud with Bill O'Reilly. Now there's a tough guy. He's been on the show a couple of times. And he's a tough guy. What's going on there? What's at the core of the feud?

    JOHN EDWARDS: Well, the core of the feud is I've been talking about homeless veterans and the fact that we have a couple hundred thousand homeless veterans who have no place to sleep at night. They're either in shelters...

    LETTERMAN: It's embarrassing, isn't it?

    EDWARDS: It's incredibly embarrassing for America. Huge moral issue facing the country. And he kind of went on his show and said that I was exaggerating, making it up. And I think he got a lot of correspondence, a lot of homeless veterans have been calling in.

    LETTERMAN: Well, you know what I've noticed about Bill O'Reilly — and he's a marvelous communicator. But he's not — he doesn't really care much about telling the truth.


    O'Reilly then countered:

    As Laura Ingraham might say, tedious. Edwards and Letterman could not care less about the truth unless it fits into their far-left vision of the world. Using homeless veterans to make a dishonest political point is wrong. That's one of the reasons Edwards is going nowhere in his campaign. The man simply cannot be trusted.


    Recently the Associated Press reported on an interesting program giving wounded Marines and Navy Corpsmen job placement in the film industry.  Working with the Wounded Marine Careers Foundationgives these vets hands on training in the various aspects of filmmaking--even the camera equipment can be modified to suite any injuries the vets may have.  As the center's co-founder Kev Lombard tells the AP, the idea for the program came out of his own project:

    Lombard came up with the idea for the foundation's Wounded Marine Training Center for Careers in Media program after being asked by a friend in the military nearly two years ago to document the stories of wounded veterans at military hospitals.

    "It wasn't our story to tell. It was theirs," he said. "So I said how about we teach them to tell their own story."


    Throughout the story we follow one young wounded Marine who's filming a mock scene of helmets atop inverted rifles set as battlefield memorials to those killed.  If movies about Iraq will continue to be made in the future, his lens offers an idea of just how valuable these aspiring filmmakers may be:

    Frey focuses on the helmets, which sit near a box of blank ammunition. For a moment he considers taking pictures. But then he decides against it, saying later that the scene didn't look real.
    More
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES

Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
CAMPAIGN 2008
republican gop convention periscope mccain

John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime.

Sponsored by