Soldier's Home : Afghanistan

Video: First Gurkha to Die in Afghanistan

David Botti — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:21:30 GMT

A new video posted yesterday features footage from a battle in which the first Gurkha to die in Afghanistan was killed. Gurkha's are Nepalese soldiers recruited to serve with the British army which they've done since 1815, fighting throughout all the major wars including Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK Guardian provided this account of the battle in which the fallen Gurkha, 28-year-old Yubraj Rai, was killed:

Braving withering fire from fortified Taliban positions, men from the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles, located the body of Rifleman Yubraj Rai and then carried it more than 100m across open ground.
In previous years the fighting in Helmand has subsided in November, but the latest dispatches from the region reveal concerted resistance from the Taliban forces. Rai, who had been in Afghanistan for only two weeks, was shot during an operation to clear the southern districts of Musa Qala after intelligence revealed that the Taliban had consolidated their forces almost a year after British troops seized control of the town.
During the operation earlier this month, a Gurkha platoon was ambushed on a stretch of open ground. Amid the chaos, Rai was hit almost immediately.
Colleagues initially believed that the 28-year-old was just diving for cover. But after he realised Rai had been hit, Lieutenant Oli Cochrane began planning to rescue his body, but suddenly lost all radio contact as a bullet hit his radio. Further rounds then pierced his rucksack.
As Taliban fighters found their range, Captain Gajendera Angdembe, Rifleman Dhan Gurung and Rifleman Manju Gurung ran 100m across open ground to retrieve Rai's body.

Here's the video via ITN:

A second Gurkha was later killed in Afghanistan when his vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb.

Afghanistan Watch: A Story Compilation

David Botti — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:18:24 GMT

Though it's often cited as where the U.S. has to now focus its military, there's still little substantive news stories on the war in Afghanistan. To keep tabs on the latest developments involving U.S. and coalition troops in that conflict, here's the first installment in of an occasional series highlighting the latest about Afghanistan.

First we have a video from the BBC which offers a concise and disturbing account of U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan (warning: the video features partial footage of dead soldiers). The BBC cameraman was recently awarded a journalism prize for what he filmed.

Also from the BBC is this video following British soldiers as they pursue a group of Taliban fighters, an act likened to "chasing ghosts" by the British commander. Also, during the mission a faulty mortar round injuries a Briton forcing a tactical retreat as his comrades carry him to safety. As the BBC reporter remarks, it was a regular day "gaining ground, loosing ground -- and there have been many days much worse than this."

Last week in the New York Times embedded reporter C.J. Chivers provided a detailed "foxhole" account of a joint American and Afghani outpost where Taliban attacks are frequent and one soldier referred to their mission as acting like a "bullet sponge." This is the kind of story that really illustrates the nature of fighting in Afghanistan from the troop level. Excerpt:

In roughly four months, Apache Troop has taken fire on at least 70 days. The attacks have come by rocket, mortar, machine gun and rifle fire. The troop’s patrols have been ambushed. Its observation posts have been hit by rocket fire.

On one day alone, the outpost was attacked four times.

The fighting is so frequent, and the terrain so rugged and heavily populated by insurgent spotters, that the outpost’s patrols dare not venture far.

On Saturday, insurgents fired on Apache Troop for an hour in the morning with a mix of mortar shells, rockets and large-caliber sniper fire. The soldiers fought back until they thought the attack had ended. Then the Taliban opened fire again.

Fighting broke out again at 1 p.m. During the exchange, a mortar round landed at the base of the castle’s southern wall and exploded with a thunderous crack, shaking the compound. About 15 long seconds later, a radio operator called to the other bunkers over the two-way radios. “Everyone’s O.K.,” he said.

UK Guardian journalist John D. McHugh has spent many months chronicling the fighting in Afghanistan where he's provided a number of multimedia presentations. The stories he's produced have ranged from following medical flights, to American foot patrols, to coalition interactions with the civilian populace. You can take a look at his Afghanistan photography portfolio here, as well as videos and audio slide shows here.

And lastly, if you didn't catch NBC News correspondent Richard Engel reporting from Afghanistan last month, watch this video piece about a platoon of Army soldiers on the hunt for Taliban fighters. The mission turns tragic when the soldiers accidentally call in mortar fire on their own men -- killing one and wounding others. Again the theme from many Afghanistan reports is present: that soldiers are living in isolated Spartan outposts where Taliban attacks come everyday and where nerves and morale are constantly ground down.

The Challange of Making Iraq and Afghanistan Battlefields "Green"

David Botti — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:37:18 GMT

As U.S. forces have battled the insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan over the past half-decade, concerns over the wars' environmental impact haven't received as much attention as the strategic and political climates. This has lead to unsafe conditions affecting the health of U.S. troops, Iraqi civilians, and the environment around them. This is according to a new study by the RAND Corporation commissioned by the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) in a effort to identify deficiencies in the Army's handling of its environmental policy, and what effects these have had on the branch's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report, Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning Through Post-Conflict, states that neglecting environmental considerations can impact not only human and environmental health, but success in counterinsurgency operations, diplomacy, and reconstruction efforts:

The report concludes that environmental considerations—including clean water, sanitation, hazardous-waste management—can be important for achieving overall U.S. objectives during reconstruction and post-conflict operations, including both short- and long-term stability. If not properly addressed in planning or operations, environmental considerations can increase the costs of an operation and make it more difficult for the Army to sustain the mission. Yet, environmental considerations are not well incorporated into Army planning or operations in any phase of an operation. To address these shortcomings, the Army should take additional steps to ensure that environmental considerations (from strategic to tactical) are appropriately incorporated into planning, operations, training, and research.

At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 the country had no system of environmental regulation or laws. Even today walking through some of the poorer neighborhoods of Baghdad, one sees trash strewn thick throughout the dirt streets where the smell at times can become unbearable. Adding to the country's lack of environmental awareness, the RAND report gave examples of the U.S. military actions which compounded the problem. The Military Times offered some highlights:

• A contractor hired by the Defense Department dumped waste oil in a landfill in Iraq and then sold the barrels.

• U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan buried several drums containing unidentified liquids, which later turned out to be hazardous, posing a risk of soil and groundwater contamination.

• In Iraq, an airfield sits over an old airfield with leaking fuel tanks. “Major health issues arise whenever it is necessary to dig.”

• Commanders in Iraq have set up hazardous-waste disposal areas close to camp perimeters, creating a force-protection issue since they were potential targets for hand grenades and IEDs.

• High-grade diesel fuel was spilled in a lake in Iraq that was used for drinking water at a base. The lake is no longer used as a source of drinking water.

• U.S. forces in Iraq improperly dumped insecticides, batteries, oil products and other hazardous material. Soldiers joked that fuel spills were “replenishing the oil wells.”

• Troops in Iraq fell ill after rolling leaking drums of industrial-strength pesticides out of a building.

The Military Times further reported that according to the U.S. Army Engineer School there is an estimated 11 million pounds of hazardous waste in Iraq. Lt. Col. Garth Anderson, commander of the 733rd Facility Engineer Detachment, told the paper that environmental problems can adversely affect U.S. soldiers trying to accomplish their tactical missions, but added this is something rarely foremost in their minds:

“It’s a pretty significant problem,” he said. “I think most soldiers are more concerned about the mission … and may not be as concerned about the environment. But it’s not just [a] … tree-hugger thing.”

The RAND report offers further examples of the relationship between environment and military missions:

Force-protection risks can also be increased by environmental issues, as illustrated in a case from Iraq. Because of the hostile environment there, commanders set up their own hazardous-waste accumulation points inside their base camps. These field-expedient satellite accumulation points were located too close to camp perimeters, creating potential targets for hand grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Environmental issues can affect the military mission in yet another way. Poor U.S. environmental practices in host nations in the region that support U.S. forces can cause diplomatic problems that affect operations. In OIF, a contractor in a host nation dumped waste anti-freeze from a U.S. base camp and sold the drums. This incident caused a major diplomatic problem that is still being negotiated. Although it has not reached the level where it is affecting operations in this case, host nations have restricted U.S. activities in several non-contingency operations in other parts of the world because of environmental concerns. For example, restrictions were imposed on Army training in Germany, and an Army training range was closed in Okinawa.

Finally, military operations can be affected by the ability of the logistical systems to support them. If base camps and military equipment have large requirements for resources, the logistics system must supply them for military operations to continue. By taking steps such as developing local water sources and reusing engine oil to reduce logistical needs, the Army can reduce the logistical burdens of an operation, either by providing more logistics capacity for warfighting or by reducing the size of the logistical tail needed for an operation.

Among the report's recommendations for military leaders are to cultivate an "environmental ethic" throughout the Army; to better incorporate environmental considerations into strategic planning; and to train soldiers about environmental issues that could arise in the field before they deploy.

9/11 Marks Deadliest Year for U.S. in Afghanistan

David Botti — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:39:13 GMT

It used to be that the term "forgotten" was often applied to the war in Afghanistan, at least in comparison to the stream of news coming out of Iraq during the past few years. Now, as Iraq quiets, troop shifts to Afghanistan are planned for the near future, and the media once again devotes more column inches to that conflict, word comes of a new milestone: 2008 is the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

The Associated Press reports that two U.S. soldiers were killed today, the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, bringing 2008's death toll to 113, passing the 111 U.S. soldiers killed there last year. At the same time, 33,000 U.S. troops are currently operating in Afghanistan; the most since 2001. As the two latest U.S. deaths are still recent, there are few details available:

The NATO-led force said one soldier was killed when insurgents attacked a compound. The separate U.S.-led coalition said a second service member died in combat. No other details were released, but a Western military official told The Associated Press that both troops were American.

Yesterday the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, told congress that NATO forces are running out of time in Afghanistan and attention needs to be given to Pakistan's tribal areas along with the border. His testimony came as U.S. forces are openly conducting cross-border raids into Pakistan, which is drawing condemnation from that country's government. From the LA Times:

Mullen said the new strategy for Afghanistan must focus on more than just increasing troop strength. He noted that existing provincial reconstruction teams did not have enough agricultural, educational and judicial experts. The U.S. must focus on boosting foreign investment and improving governance in Afghanistan, he said.

"We can't kill our way to victory," Mullen said.

Mullen said he was not convinced the U.S. and its allies were winning in Afghanistan but said he believed victory was possible.

There's been scant coverage of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, but still there is some quality work out there. The UK Guardian has this interactive piece following U.S. and British soldiers in various regions of the country. The paper also has a striking series of videos riding along with a U.S. Army Medevac helicopter crew. There was also this frightening and candid New York Times Magazine piece following a unit of soldiers operating in the volatile Korengal Valley.

More Debate Over New GI Bill

David Botti — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:45:19 GMT

Discussion over proposed GI Bill overhauls is front and center on the House floor as lawmakers debate an add-on to President Bush's request for more war funding. The goal of the add-on is to update the WWII-era GI Bill which allows veterans to receive money for attending college. Under the current proposal, Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be allowed to attend any four-year public university after having served at least three years in the active-duty military. To pay for this, the plan calls for a surtax on people making over $500,000, or couples with a combined income of $1 million. The Associated Press has reactions from both sides of the debate:

"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
The White House weighed in with an official veto promise Thursday that also attacked the Democratic plan for increasing taxes.
"The president has been clear that tax increases are unacceptable," the White House statement said.

The overall war spending bill proposal calls for $163 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the GI Bill add-on expects to raise $54 billion over the next 10 years through the surtax. The bill would also allow veterans 15 years to use the benefits, whereas currently the limit is 10 years.

In the Senate Wednesday, Sen. McCain's proposal for a GI Bill overhaul lost in a 55-42 vote to a counter proposal by Sen. Jim Webb. MSNBC summarized the differences between the two:

In the simplest terms, the Webb bill would effectively pay for tuition and housing at a four-year public college for those serving at least three years of active duty. The McCain measure isn't as generous, as it increases existing education benefits by $400 a month for the same time served: from $1,100 to $1,500.

After the vote, McCain had this reaction [via ABC News]:

“My job is to get people to stay in the military, not only to join, but to stay as well,” McCain said, although he added that he will be sitting down with Webb to try to work out a compromise. He wants to make sure to include a component of his bill which is not in Webb bill that would allow for transferability of benefits to family members.

Talk of McCain's proposal also entered the presidential campaigns when Barack Obama criticized his potential opponent's unwillingness to expand more veterans benefits. McCain's camp countered by saying it was absurd for Obama to criticize McCain's commitment to veterans. In Obama's words [via USA Today]:

I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

Also in military benefits news, the House Armed Services Committee approved next year's defense spending bill which includes a 3.9 percent pay raise for members of the military.

Pat Tillman's Legacy Four Years On

David Botti — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:58:08 GMT

Though he was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, Pat Tillman's death is still a subject of controversy and tremendous reflection. Tillman, you will recall, was the NFL player turned Army Ranger who was originally said to have died under enemy fire (he was awarded the Silver Star), but later reports found he was killed by friendly fire.

Now his mother, Mary, has published a book in which she charges that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew about the cover-up over the details of her son's death. As she writes [via MSNBC]:

“... I believe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew Pat was killed by fratricide and permitted the cover-up. It is not believable that a man known for his propensity to micromanage would not want to know what happened to his most high-profile soldier. I informed the committee that Pat received a personal letter from Rumsfeld shortly after he and his brother enlisted, commending him for his commitment to serve. Pat was obviously in Rumsfeld's consciousness."

During a recent 60 Minutes interview, Katie Couric questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren over the alterations of eyewitness accounts of Tillman's death used for his Silver Star citation. She asked if he knew who manipulated the statements, and he replied:

"Well, that's one of the questions that we will never completely answer. But it certainly is one of the areas that that raises questions. There are so many mistakes. So many things that happened. If you add them all together, it certainly calls into question the credibility of those who handled this. And raises the kind of questions that Ms. Tillman raises. I don't blame her for that. And I don't expect her ever to believe us. But there was no effort to deceive. There were mistakes and grievous errors by the legions. And as a result, we fell short of our duty to her as a mother of one of our heroes."

Over at the IAVA blog, Perry Jefferies takes issue with Sec. Geren's uncertainty, saying that the process for awarding medals should clearly indicate who writes a citation:

Only a certain amount of people handle the citation for the Silver Star, one of our highest military awards. Each commander signs a block on the document and there is a document called a transmittal letter that accompanies it from office to office. Only organizational will prevents the Army from prosecuting the criminal that a) faked an official document and b) tried to leave a lower grade enlisted Soldier to take the blame.

If indeed the medal was awarded under dishonest conditions, should it still stand? A letter to the Arizona Republic newspaper took this stance:

The awarding of the decoration was illegal, as the incident obviously didn't represent "gallantry in action against an armed enemy," as required by the Army's own regulations. This award does a disservice to all of our veterans who have legitimately earned this august award. The Tillman family should return the award to the Army, which should then rescind the award as unjustified and issued illegally.

Another reader then responded:

Yes, it may be true that this star represents "gallantry in action against an armed enemy." What could be more gallant than a young man giving up not only his career but his life? Pat Tillman gave up his life to serve in an illegal war that has ruined our economy with the billions of dollars being wasted but, more important, the loss of the respect of the rest of the world.

In the New York Times' look at Mary Tillman's new book, there's an interesting historical note of other athletes who've been killed in action.

Eddie Grant, the Giants’ third baseman, died in France in 1918. Christy Mathewson, the great Giants pitcher, had his life shortened from a mustard-gas accident in training near the end of World War I. And Nile Kinnick, the star running back from Iowa, died in a training flight in 1943. But Pat Tillman’s death was different because of the way he was used, posthumously, blatantly.

You can read a Newsweek Q&A with Mary Tillman here.

Still Wondering: Is Afghanistan Forgotten?

David Botti — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:28:47 GMT

Is it possible that, when all is said and done, the war in Afghanistan will become a "forgotten war"? An article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer on U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan got me thinking about where that war will end up in the history books--and I couldn't help but think of the Korean War. My knowledge of that war comes primarily from my father, an Air Force veteran who served during the conflict. Ever since I could remember, whenever he talks about Korea he prefaces the conversation lamenting the fact the Korean War receives much less attention than WWII or Vietnam. Korea shows that even a modern war can fade from collective memory.

It's clear that Iraq overshadows Afghanistan in the public consciousness, but it seems as though over the past few years the term "overshadows" has become somewhat of an understatement. Here's the situation over there as told by the Inquirer:

The U.S. military death toll will soon reach 500 in Afghanistan, where the war has received less media attention than the conflict in Iraq despite an increasingly violent insurgency, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and a growing commitment of troops...

...By the Pentagon's latest count, the armed forces have suffered 489 deaths so far. And still troops arrive: The number in Afghanistan exceeds 34,000, with 7,500 additional men and women requested.

The U.S. troops are part of a 40-nation force expanded from 40,000 in fall 2006 to nearly 70,000 today. Last year was the deadliest since 2001, according to the United Nations, which reported 8,000 fatalities, including 1,500 civilians.

As far back as 2004, Time Magazine published a cover story whose online component was titled: "Remember Afghanistan?" And then there was this New York Times 2005 editorial titled: "Afghanistan's Forgotten War." Now, in 2008, we're still wondering if Afghanistan is forgotten. But, why? Is it simply because of less media coverage? Is it because of Iraq? Is it because people don't care, don't understand, or don't have enough energy to follow two U.S. wars at the same time?

Whatever the reason, the violence still continues. Yesterday came word that U.S. Marines recently deployed to Afghanistan, launched a major operation attacking a Taliban-held town in the violent Helmand region. According to the Associated Press, this was the furthest south U.S. forces had operated in years:

The goal is to stretch NATO's presence into an area where illegal opium poppy fields are plentiful and the Taliban is strong. British troops man a small base on Garmser's northern edge but insurgents rule the countryside south of the outpost all the way to the Pakistan border.

Also yesterday, Canada's Globe and Mail Newspaper published an opinion piece by Brigadier General Dennis Tabbernor, deputy commanding general, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. The paper posed the question: "Is Afghanistan Worth It?," and he answered in part:

The spectacle of suicide bombs notwithstanding, violence is not the rule. Last year, 70 per cent of incidents occurred in 10 per cent of the nearly 400 districts. The commander of our Regional Command East, centerd around Jalalabad, reported that more than 90 per cent of Afghans there enjoy a peaceful life; the violence shown by our media does not represent the lives of the vast majority of Afghans.

Instead, the lives of most Afghans are lived peacefully, with increasing access to basic services, the prospect of a representative and responsive government at the local, regional and national levels. The economy rewards honest work, and the possibility of education exists for their children.

As of today, here are the latest casualty figures according to Reuters:

More than 200 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan last year and 50 foreign troops have been killed so far this year. Here are figures for foreign military deaths as a result of violence or accidents in Afghanistan since the Taliban government was toppled in late 2001:

NATO/U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:

United States 494
Britain 94
Canada 82
Germany 26
Spain 23
Netherlands 16
Other nations 66
TOTAL: 801

So, is Afghanistan forgotten by the average American? You're comments and answers are welcome.

Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

David Botti — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:41:55 GMT

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.

Webb's bill wouldn't cover the entire cost of study at a private school like George Washington, but it would pay for tuition, fees and books at the most expensive state university. It would also provide an allowance for essentials based on the federal cost-of-living estimate. As an incentive to private schools, the federal government would also match any scholarship funds awarded to a veteran.
The bill would also decrease the disparity between benefits offered to active duty soldiers and those offered to members of the National Guard.

The report also noted the Pentagon's reluctance to the new bill. Officials there are worried that increased education benefits would encourage soldiers to leave the military for college, thus hurting retention numbers.

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, likened today's planned bi-partisan press conference supporting Webb's bill to the coming together of old rivals:

With the political situation so polarized this election year, it's like seeing players from the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox sit down for Sunday afternoon tea.

On the presidential campaign front, Senator John McCain recently unveiled his own GI Bill improvements after receiving criticism for not supporting Webb's bill. According to The Hill:

McCain’s bill is designed to enhance the existing Montgomery GI Bill, but will compete for Senate votes with Webb’s measure, which already has 57 co-sponsors, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)...

...At the same time, McCain and other supporters of the new bill touted it as an improvement over Webb’s measure. Some military officials have worried the Webb bill’s would provide such an incentive for active-duty military to attend school that it would make it hard for the military to retain soldiers.

Below are some of the main bulleted points from both McCain's and Webb's proposals. First up, here's Webb's taken from this brief fact sheet:

Increased educational benefits would be available to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard. To qualify, veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

The bill provides for educational benefits to be paid in amounts linked to the amount of active duty served in the military after 9/11. Generally, veterans would receive some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months, which equals four academic years. Veterans would still be eligible to receive any incentive-based supplemental educational assistance from their military branch for which they qualify.

Benefits provided under the bill would allow veterans pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area. The bill would allow additional payments for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.

The bill would create a new program in which the government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under S.22.

Veterans would have up to fifteen years, compared to ten years under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, after they leave active duty to use their educational assistance entitlement. Veterans would be barred from receiving concurrent assistance from this program and another similar program.

And, here's McCain's taken from his Website:

An immediate increase in education benefits for active duty personnel to $1500 a month, and to improve retention, those benefits increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service.

Significantly increased benefit for members of the National Guard and Reserves.

Transferability, the ability of service members to transfer their education benefits to dependents. After 6 years, half of the benefit may be transferred and after 12 years 100% may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children.

Student loan repayment. Allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans.

Creation of a matching program to help more veterans graduate debt-free. Up to an additional $3,000 per year could be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs in return for the school retiring some or all of the servicemember’s debt.

Access to Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits for service academy graduates and Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps officers who continue serving.

Builds on existing educational benefits program to ensure rapid implementation with minimal additional administrative costs.

Airline Goes Bankrupt, Homecomings Delayed

David Botti — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03:04 GMT

The Air Force Times reported today that the bankruptcy of a civilian airline under contract to provide flights for the military is delaying homecoming for some troops. ATA shut down the day after filing for bankruptcy on April 2--the airline's second bankruptcy in nearly three years. An army spokesman told the AF Times that troops could expect delays of two to six days for the next several weeks.

ATA was part of the FedEx Teaming Arrangement, a group of airlines contracted by the military to transport troops and their families overseas. The Indianapolis Star reported on the circumstances of the local air carrier's demise:

Hampered by unprofitable routes, ATA lost $75 million last year and was in talks with five potential suitors when FedEx, with apparently little explanation, decided to cut off the Indianapolis carrier's only money maker: military charters...Its roots were passenger charters that led the carrier, earlier known as American Trans Air, to branch out into troop charters. ATA operates a $340 million-a-year airborne bus line ferrying troops and their families to and from places where the U.S. military stations troops worldwide.

Back on the home front, military families awaiting the return of their stranded loved ones are speaking out. The Hartford Courant has the story of one father who reached out to his old college roommate, Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein, for help:

"I'm just a frustrated parent right now — even though my son might be OK with what's going on right now," William Currao said Monday.

Currao, desperate for a better answer, called U.S. Rep. John Larson and U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. He even reached out to his old college roommate and Miramax Films co-founder, Harvey Weinstein, who is friends with the Clinton family.

"He's been a great friend and I've never asked him for anything," Currao said. "I just wanted to run this by him. Maybe I can get him to send out his jets over there to get the whole battalion picked up."

The ATA-related stranding of a number of Vermont soldiers in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq prompted a letter from the Vermont Congressional Delegation to Secretary of Defense Gates. The letter cited that many of the soldiers had their combat tours extended from 12 to 15 months as a result of the surge--and, it's time for them to come home. From the letter:

The parents of two different Vermont soldiers have contacted our offices to express frustration that their sons are facing delays in coming home. First and foremost they wish to know when their loved one will be returning home, and second, they want answers about how this delay was allowed to happen.

As a result of the troop surge, many of the service-members participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have had their deployments extended from 12 to 15 months. Ask any of these men and women when they are going home and most can give you a precise day and time. The same is true of their families who have been eagerly anticipating the return of their loved one. To be told within days of shipping out that your trip home has been delayed until a date uncertain is demoralizing. Unnecessary delays also result in additional troops remaining in a war zone beyond when their presence serves any constructive purpose for the war-fighting effort.

Earlier this month, Aviation Week gave some background on the FedEx Teaming Arrangement:

The military airlift business was a steady and lucrative one, transporting military personnel and their families to and from overseas postings. In September, the FedEx team won a $1 billion firm-fixed price contract from the U.S. Transportation Command covering a year’s worth of flying for the entire FedEx team. Apart from FedEx itself and ATA, members include Air Transport International, of Little Rock, Ark.; Purchase, N.Y.-based Atlas Air, Northwest Airlines, Omni Air International, Inc., of Tulsa, Okla., and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, also based in Purchase.

Veterans Suing the VA, Senators Call for Resignation

David Botti — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:57:35 GMT

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:

"Doctor Katz's irresponsible actions have been a disservice to our veterans and it is time for him to go. The number one priority of the VA should be caring for our veterans, not covering up the truth...I have spoken with Secretary Peake and I have asked him to take immediate action to restore the faith of our veterans in the mental health care provided by the VA."

The Associated Press details the contents VA emails disclosed at the trial:

An e-mail message from Katz disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit that went to trial in San Francisco starts with "Shh!" and claims 12,000 veterans a year attempt suicide while under department treatment.
"Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" the e-mail asks.
A VA spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.
Another e-mail said an average of 18 war veterans kill themselves each day — and five of them are under VA care when they commit suicide.

For more on why the plaintiffs brought this case against the Department of Veterans Affairs, you can visit their website here.

19 Percent of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets Suffer from Depression

David Botti — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:22:13 GMT

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.

New Looks at Military Blogging

David Botti — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:09:09 GMT

Since the start of the Iraq war, the importance and viability of military blogs has stirred up tremendous debate. There have been issues of military censorship, journalistic viability, and ethical dilemmas. Recently, talk of where (and how) military blogs fit into the war's narrative has seemed to intensify to some degree. Here's a look at what's happening:

The Columbia Journalism Review published a lengthy article in its last issue profiling Bill Roggio, a U.S.-based military blogger who's set up his own media operation aimed at reporting on terrorism and "small wars" beyond what the mainstream media can do. Before the piece gets to Roggio, the intro takes a look at the gap military blogs aim to fill:

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, among the seven-hundred-odd journalists who embedded with combat units were few who were familiar with the military in any intimate way. To many critics, especially those with military experience, this revealed itself in the press’s coverage of the war, which they felt often missed the mark when it came to explaining the hows and the whys of the fight, as well as the mundane realities of military life and culture.

Army veteran Roggio first started blogging about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to put the events in perspective for his family. But, as CJR notes, a transformation took place that's changed the way Roggio operates—and underscores the significance these blogs can have:

It was during the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004, however, that he began to focus his effort. He had been posting detailed battle maps of Iraq’s Anbar province on his site, showing where Marine and Army units were meeting the stiffest resistance from insurgent groups who harassed them with roadside bombs and the occasional ambush. In the spring of 2005, a new group of readers began logging on to Roggio’s site. The Marines in Anbar province were embroiled in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse, and looking for any tactical advantage they could find. Officers with the Regimental Combat Team 2 discovered Roggio’s site and began using it as an information source, calling his site the “Command Chronology of Western Iraq.”

While Roggio continues to build up his Long War Journal, a contributing writer to An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog said he was recently fired from his job working for a USCG contractor after writing posts critical of the branch. Mike McGrath, who comes from a Coast Guard family, wrote of his firing:

Was told that my position would have been downsized anyways within the next few months, my behavior on the blog sites just made it easier to make me the first to go...Did I mention that I just had my performance evals completed within the last 2 weeks, scored perfect all across the board, got a raise (which I will never see) and that there was no indication from anybody that there was anything wrong occurring; no feedback, no counseling, no pointing out of where I might be violating any written policy, nothing - no indication whatsoever.

There's a brand new beginning for British military bloggers detailed by the Guardian. Corporal Lachlan MacNeil will be one of the first British soldiers allowed to blog about his experiences during an upcoming Afghanistan deployment. He'll be blogging directly for the Guardian, but as the paper points out this is quite rare:

Last year, the MoD introduced new guidelines barring military personnel from speaking about their service publicly. Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel are not able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play multiplayer computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if any information they use concerns matters of defence.

Wired's Danger Room blog wrote of a 2006 U.S. Army report that considered secretly hiring military bloggers to "promote a specific message." The military's comment on the story is that this report was simply an educational exercise intended to be thought-provoking. Here's an excerpt from the Joint Special Operations University report titled "Blogs and Military Information Strategy":

The process of boosting the blog to a position of influence could take some time, however, and depending on the person running the blog, may impose a significant educational burden, in terms of cultural and linguistic training before the blog could be put online to any useful effect. Still, there are people in the military today who like to blog. In some cases, their talents might be redirected toward operating blogs as part of an information campaign. If a military blog offers valuable information that is not available from other sources, it could rise in rank fairly rapidly.

Finally, PBS show Frontline has this "making of" video taking a look at a new documentary following Army soldiers in Iraq. One of the featured soldiers is the founder of milblogging.com. As the website explains:

To record their war, from private reflections to real-time footage of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on the ground, director Deborah Scranton (The War Tapes) creates a "virtual embed," supplying cameras to the soldiers of the Bad Voodoo Platoon and working with them to shape an intimate portrait that reveals the hard grind of their war.

An Exhausted Military

David Botti — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:10:35 GMT

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.

Interactive Map Showing Hometowns of Casualties

David Botti — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:36:36 GMT

A reader recently pointed me to an incredibly detailed interactive map indicating the hometowns of U.S. military casualties from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Based on information available from the Department of Defense, the map's creator has allowed viewers to filter the map by branch of service, military operation, sex, and age. Check it out here. It first appears zoomed in on the New York City area, but one can view anywhere in the country.

From the Website's mission statement:

In mid 2007 oobgolf.com launched an advanced golf course finder for our users. We recently made the decision to use that same technology and development resources to map the hometowns of soldiers who have died in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was not done as a political statement. We simply felt that this tool provided a unique way for Americans to connect to these fallen soldiers in a new more personal way.

Veteran Vs. Veteran: A Visit to Washington

David Botti — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:03:59 GMT

Thirty-seven years after John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) descended upon Washington, D.C. to protest against U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, a new generation of veterans will do the same later this week. The group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is heading to the Capital as part of an event called Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan, named after the similar VVAW event four decades ago. As IVAW puts it:

The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

There hasn't been much U.S. press coverage on the event, but the UK's Sunday Times, using the headline of "Patriot Missiles," had a lengthy magazine story on the subject:

The veterans are not against the military and seek not to indict it – instead they seek to shine a light on the bigger picture: that the Abu Ghraib prison regime and the Haditha massacre of innocent Iraqis are not isolated incidents perpetrated by “bad seeds” as the military suggests, but evidence of an endemic problem. They will say they were tasked to do terrible things and point the finger up the chain of command, which ignores, diminishes or covers up routine abuse and atrocities.

Other veterans, and vet bloggers, aren't thrilled with this event. A group called "Stop the Slander," described as a "coalition of concerned veterans, family members, and friends," has even published a guide for reporter's covering IVAW. The guide warns journalists that claims made by IVAW may be untrue. The guide even provides an acronym to follow of questions to ask:

D: Date(s) – When did the incident occur?
U: Unit(s) – What military units were involved?
P: Personnel – What are the names of the participants and witnesses?
E: Event(s) – What exactly happened exactly where?
S: Signature(s) – Was this reported at the time or later and were reports, affidavits or depositions signed, or will they now be signed?

Veterans For Freedom blogger, Mark Seavey, took his own critical look at the IVAW's preparations for the Winter Soldier event, but in the end wrote that both sides of the debate should be heard -- without unnecessary contest or debate:

I think it speaks well of IVAW that they expect all testimony to be true and verifiable. And there will plenty of eyes there to ensure that. Hopefully we can all say our piece, discuss our views and then go home with no violence on anyone’s part.

The term "Winter Soldier" is derived from Thomas Paine's passage intended to motivate George Washington's troops suffering at Valley Forge:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

This is generating a huge amount of debate within the vocal veterans community. What's interesting to note is that perhaps the only demographic who can debate IVAW, without being called-out on their lack of service, is other veterans. The issues goes above someone's service record, and shows how the fabled, and perhaps cliched, military bond can only go so far in such times of controversy. Or, is it still there, above all the ruckus? We'll soon find out.