Soldier's Home : Controversy

Helping Veterans Register to Vote

David Botti — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:02:14 GMT

After four months of intense criticism over a universal ban on non-partisan voter registration drives at federal veterans facilities, the Department of Veterans Affairs yesterday announced it will allow such drives provided they don't interfere with day-to-day operations. In a brief press release the VA outlined conditions promoting voter registration within its facilities:

The policy requires that information about the right of VA patients to register and vote, and other patients’ rights, be posted in every VA hospital, and that all VA patients be provided a copy of these rights when they are admitted to a VA facility.

Every hospital is now also required to publish a written policy on voter assistance, allowing patients to leave the hospital to register and vote, subject to the opinions of their health care providers. Patients unable to leave the facility must be assisted to register and to vote by absentee ballot.

It was in early May when the VA issued its controversial directive banning groups from conducting voter registration drives on VA property. The department referenced its adherence to the Hatch Act, which regulates a federal employee's political activity--even though, as the New York Times then pointed out, veterans are not federal employees. Furthermore, a VA spokesman told the Times:

"[The VA] wanted to ensure that our staff remains focused on caring for our veterans instead of having to determine the political agenda of each group that might try to enter our facilities.”

Among politicians who came out against this May directive were U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who were already exchanging letters with VA Secretary James B. Peake over the issue. In a letter from the senators dated May 6, they expressed frustration with an apparent reversal of VA voting policies issued just days before:

On April 25, 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs responded to our request for a consistent voter registration policy by issuing Directive 2008-23. While we do not believe it went far enough, we commend the changes made by the Directive which provided that veterans would be required to receive voter information and assistance in registering and applying for an absentee ballot...However, in the few days following the issuance of the first directive, the Department apparently withdrew it. Without explaining the rationale for this change, the Department today released a new policy, Directive 2008-25...it appears that a new and broad prohibition was included against third-party organizations conducting voter registration drives.

Last month Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut's secretary of state, penned an op-ed in the New York Times recalling her own experiences trying to register veterans to vote:

On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.
Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

Now with yesterday's new VA directive, it remains to be seen whether the flurry of criticism will end as veterans like Mr. O'Nieal start to register with more ease -- or, if in reality, all of this is coming too late. With less than two months until the presidential election, some critics wonder if there is enough time to register a significant number of veterans. In an interview with the New York Times, Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, gave his view of the situation:

“The real question now is whether the V.A. will implement the new policy in time for the November election and whether local and state voting officials will take proactive steps to sign up the veterans at these facilities.”

Though it's unlikely that even a modest surge in the number of veterans registered to vote would influence the presidential election, it's still interesting to note where most veterans seem to stand politically. In late August Gallup released information showing veterans favor McCain over Obama 56 to 34-percent. The statistics came at a time when overall U.S. voters were favoring Obama over McCain 46 to 43-percent. Gallup also looked to see whether veterans were favoring McCain because he is a veteran himself, or whether they favor him out of a greater affinity for the Republican platform. According to the pollsters:

McCain clearly holds an advantage over Obama among veterans, but that is probably due more to the fact that veterans tend to be Republicans than to the fact that McCain himself served in the military and is regarded by some as a war hero. Veterans showed similarly strong support for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. The data suggest there still is an effect of military service on candidate preference, but it is rather small and is overwhelmed by the effects of party affiliation.

Where Have All the Embeds Gone?

David Botti — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:21:30 GMT

Editor and Publisher mentioned in a recent article that the number of journalists embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq is currently around only a dozen.

The article was prompted by the expulsion of photojournalist Zoriah Miller when he took pictures of dead marines after a recent bombing in the Anbar province. While the marines said Miller broke clearly stated rules for what can be photographed by embedded journalists, Miller argued on his blog that because the marines could not be identified in the photos he'd done nothing wrong. Miller has chronicled his side of the story throughout many recent posts to his blog.

In Washington, D.C., a Vet Refuses Iraq Service

David Botti — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:15:47 GMT

Late last week a U.S. Army soldier stood in the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building and announced during a press conference that he's now refusing orders for deployment to Iraq. Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, who served as a military photojournalist, gave his statement soon after a number of anti-war veterans testified before Congress -- the first time such veterans have done so. AFP gave this account of the hearing:

Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told the landmark hearing of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis." He spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq to find little help or treatment offered from official circles. Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the wounds of the war...Another soldier told AFP he had to boost his medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying. A group of veterans in the packed hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the U.S. effort in Iraq is succeeding. Almost to a man, the testifiers denounced serious flaws in the chain of command in Iraq.

As for Sgt. Chiroux, he said his position as a military journalist gave exposed him to countless disturbing stories he was afraid to publish for fear of retribution by the Army. He arrived in Washington, D.C. with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), which coordinated the testimonies before Congress. Below is a video of Chiroux's speech, where he also said he will remain in the U.S. despite the great number of war resistors who move to Canada.

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.

Stephen King and Controversy Over Army Literacy

David Botti — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:52:25 GMT

A war of words began recently between writer Stephen King and a conservative blogger over remarks King made about literacy and the U.S. Army. During an appearance at the Library of Congress last month King said:

"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's not as bright."

Blogger Noel Sheppard of the Website NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias, criticized King and likened his words to those of John Kerry when he said in 2006 that having a poor education would get someone stuck in Iraq. Sheppard wrote further: "Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen."

After Sheppard's blog post appeared, King countered on his own Website:

I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources...and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise.

King further instructed readers of his website to email Sheppard with the words: “Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Army released a statement yesterday responding to King's remarks:

"America's soldiers are proudly serving and fighting for us all. We can be proud of our soldiers' selfless service, their skill and their ingenuity. They certainly are role models for every high-school student in America considering a noble career...and many book authors."

Just as John Kerry's 2006 remarks sparked the ire of veterans and average citizens alike, King has found himself the subject some negative blogging since Sheppard's original post. One commenter for the original post did offer a point of view from the middle ground:

I actually don't think King meant to insult the troops. He made a mistake of trotting out an outdated draft-era notion about the military to prove a totally different point. But he compounded his error by lashing out at those who pointed out his mistake. Now it's a "thing" in the media, and he's not looking very good, or smart.

A West Point Cadet Opts for the NFL

David Botti — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:36:05 GMT

There's been some pointed discussions lately over the future of West Point cadet Caleb Campbell, who was a seventh round NFL draft pick of the Detroit Lions late last month. While many of his classmates may be deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future, Campbell will (if he makes the roster) do recruiting and PR events for the Army during the offseason. The Army's point of view is that Campbell can use his NFL status in a unique way to help the service. The New York Times provides the Army's official policy:

Any member of the Army with an exceptional skill who could provide recruiting and public affairs benefits to the Army could be assigned to the nearest recruiting unit for their two-year active-duty period. Those approved can participate in their professional activity — in Campbell’s case, pro football — as long as it does not interfere with military duties. Then they can apply for early release from active duty.

Campbell also described to the Times how he came to the decision to pursue football:

“I had a talk with myself,” he said on the conference call. “Either way I could win. I decided if football presented an opportunity to play in the NFL, I would take it. Me, as a football player, would be very beneficial representing the United States Army.”

There are two sides to the argument over whether this was a proper decision. As the Army struggles to expand, any strong recruiting effort by Campbell may truly help. At the same time, how does one go play football while his classmates go to war? Phil Carter at Intel Dump wondered how effective Campbell could actually be:

Isn't the Army hemorrhaging junior officers? Don't we need young, tough, aggressive West Point football players to be platoon leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't now the time for the "Petraeus Generation" to step up?...I'm not so sure. For starters, Campbell hasn't actually served as an Army officer. So it's not like he can go into some high school and talk about Army values and Army leadership and what those things mean from personal experience. It'd be different if he'd served a combat tour and then come back to the NFL. But all he knows is football and West Point. Which doesn't help much in recruiting enlisted personnel (as opposed to West Point cadets).

The UK Guardian had mixed feelings on the issue, but did acknowledge Campbell's position does offer the chance to get prospective recruits to listen:

"Join the army and live the glamorous life of an NFL player," he won't be saying. But then again he doesn't have to say anything to the impressionable kids ushered into the presence of the star of the 2008 NFL draft.

USA Today's sports blog Game On took an informal poll of its readers, finding that 53 percent believe Campbell should not be playing football at this time. A sampling of two reader comments show just how heated the discussion can get:

US YOUR BRAIN: I am a West Point graduate and I retired after a 20 year military career. While Campbell did not make these rules he is unfortunate to be one of the first to take advantage of them. This action and the rule disgusts me on many levels. There is NO HONOR in this action. During my time at WP we had one of the top field goal kickers in the the nation. He did not get to go into the NFL. He honorably served his time.

mrkeepingitreal: Geeezzzz... let the kid play and get over it. he's busted his butt for 4 years at the academy and had every intention of serving his tour. He just happened to be good enough to get drafted by the NFL...his publicity alone at the draft paid for his education. The Army and Armed Forces in general embrace stories like Campbell's and it's a great opportunity for his to represent them.

The Lions' defensive coordinator says he's impressed with Campbell so far -- but, I just wonder what happens if he doesn't make the cut. If he goes back to the Army, how will his soldiers treat him?

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.

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.

The "Stop-Loss" Continues

David Botti — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:25:36 GMT

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."

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.

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.

Disturbing Iraq Video Addresses Wider Issues

David Botti — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:17:11 GMT

A disturbing new video out of Iraq has found its way onto the Internet and set off a flurry of condemnations and demands to reveal the identity of the U.S. serviceman involved. The video, which has been removed from YouTube, depicted a U.S. Marine grabbing a puppy by the neck and flinging the animal off a cliff. Due to the low quality of the video, there was no way to see where, or how, the dog landed. Some are still questioning the authenticity of this video, but it certainly did look real enough to solicit this interesting analysis of the video from media blogger Rex Sorgatz (via Gawker):

Logically, we know this soldier has possibly killed people in Iraq, so it feels misplaced to vent about a puppy in a war zone; emotionally, we find hurting a helpless puppy beyond reproach. If the video weren't shot in Iraq (if it were, say, some tweens torturing a dog in a backyard -- you'll find plenty of this on YouTube), the tension wouldn't be there, and it wouldn't be today's viral hit. The contradiction -- people vs. puppies; war vs. peace-keeping -- will probably catapult this thing to network nightly news.

As this blogger chronicles, a number of people immediately set off on a hunt to find the identity of the Marine involved in the incident. Some mainstream media sources picked up the story looking into the Marine Corps' response to the matter. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The named Marine returned to Hawaii in October from Haqlaniyah, Iraq, after a seven-month deployment, Maj. Chris Perrine, a Marine spokesman, told the Honolulu Advertiser.

"We're still trying to figure out, is this a legitimate video?" Perrine told the newspaper. "Was it edited? Is it [that Marine] who's in it? We don't know. We'll find that out hopefully sooner rather than later."

There seems to be larger issues at play here than just a disturbing video. Echoing Sorgatz's views on the matter, others are wondering why the death of a puppy in the middle of a war is causing such outrage. From Cenk Uygur, an AOL media blogger:

But I'm not writing to say what a bad guy this Marine is for throwing the puppy like he does. That's obvious. I'm not writing to implicate the whole Marine Corps for the act of two goofballs who are not representative of our troops over there...No, I'm writing about our reaction as a society. I have now seen this story everywhere from all over the internet to the local news. Everyone is outraged. Are you kidding me? We caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and we're outraged over a puppy?!

Some may object to Uygur's characterization of the death of "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians"--others may think it's right on--but what's interesting is how debate over the tastefulness of the video has grown to how we judge the degrees of right and wrong in war. Is it because the puppy is a symbol of innocence? Is it because people wonder what kind of conditions drove this Marine to throw a puppy off a cliff? There are far more stories about U.S. soldiers adopting stray dogs in Iraq. So, how does this fact relate to the behavior in the video? Perhaps a discussion on the matter is just starting; there's a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of self-reflection still left.

Treating (or Not Treating) Mental Health Issues at NY Base

David Botti — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:53:02 GMT

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.

The Image of a Veteran

David Botti — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:18:35 GMT

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 specifically 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?

In the Vietnam war movies it was the dysfunctional, deranged, and even dangerous vet. I looked at about 100 films that portrayed Vietnam vets in them, and there wasn’t a single film that portrayed a healthy, functional veteran. So, what we see among other things is a lot of violence, the war brought home in a psychological sense, and even sometimes Hollywood portrayed guys coming home with their hand grenades and weapons and used those on the street.

Now we’re seeing one of the main representations of Iraq war veterans coming home is in the press with the violent crimes they’re committing. A lot of stories read to me like a lot of press reports and fictional representations of Vietnam vets that guys can’t leave the war behind them. They come home and they act out these war scenarios on the streets.

Is there a way the press can report on crimes committed by returning veterans without having such representations be the result?

Look at the current series the New York Times is running. The first in the series reported that one third of the violence is against spouses, girlfriends, and children. What this shows is a problem of masculinity and sense of worth as a man that perhaps the war has affected. These kinds of acts of violence against women and children are ways of acting out on that. Those are the kinds of stories that should be reported rather than this kind of pedestrian-type story of people coming home scared, and they’ve been trained up to act on their fears militarily

So it’s an issue of the press making the issue too black and white, and not attending to the gray areas?

The press is asking the wrong questions. They’re asking what is it about the military experience that causes these guys to act out like this, rather than asking what it is about the military culture (and even the culture of America) that requires men’s self esteem to somehow be related to their war experience.

You’ve said that it’s possible the behavior of Iraq veterans is influenced by past portrayals of Vietnam veterans. Is it possible reporters are also influenced by these pop culture images of Vietnam vets?

That exactly right. What we need to ask is, why did this story sound true to the reporter? What is the reporter herself bringing into this situation of reporting that leads her to think that this story is true when she hears it. These people live in the same culture you and I live in. They go to the same movies, they read the same books, they hear the same kinds of stories. Their sense of what is right is based on the same cultural references as the rest of us.

You’ve done some research on the origin of the term “PTSD.” There are some who say that the term is overused in talking about Iraq veterans. How was it used when it first came out?

I went back and looked at how PTSD came into being in the first place as a diagnostic category. I think it was attractive to the press at the time because it served a cultural and political function. It was inviting because it displaced from public view the fact that a lot of people were returning from Vietnam opposed to the war. The attractiveness of PTSD was that it re-spun the coming home story. It might have been attractive to journalists for reasons of basic liberal humanitarianism or even guilt that they didn’t go to the war. They were finding some way to speak sympathetically to the experience of people coming home from war. That may be what’s happening again. These stories [in the today’s press] are written very good heartedly. They’re not attempts to slander Iraq war veterans, as some critics seem to suggest they do. But, going back to Vietnam vets there was a stigma surrounding them. That’s the hidden danger that if indeed journalists are writing these stories because they are sympathetic, and they want to do something good for Iraq war veterans, in the long run they might be doing some damage.

What about how we use the term “PTSD” today?

PTSD had prominence in the press so quickly because that’s where the Vietnam-era story leaves off. That was sort of the easy tag line for them. Lots and lots of analogies. These stories are written with phrases such as: “it’s like with Vietnam-era veterans.” These stories are full of those kinds of tag lines. And they’re apparently written like that as a way of engaging the reader at the level that the writer assumes the reader is at. They assume correctly that the readers are coming out of a historical period in which they’ve been immersed in these images of PTSD and war veterans.

The American public remembers what happened to Vietnam vets when they came home much more then they remember the war itself. The war in Vietnam has really faded in American memory, but people have these very sharp images of the spitting incidents and PTSD. Because those are the images that have hung on in popular culture, and I think it’s almost certain that will happen with the war in Iraq--that the coming home narrative is going to displace the history of the war itself. And that could happen quite quickly.