Soldier's Home : The Issues

15 Percent of Veterans Report Sexual Trauma to the VA

David Botti — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:21:32 GMT

A study released today by the VA's National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder found that 15 percent of the Iraq/Afghanistan vets seeking treatment at VA facilities report experiencing some kind of sexual trauma while serving in the military. Additionally, these veterans are 1.5 times more likely require mental health care. These numbers are derived from the nearly 40 percent of recent war veterans who've sought general medical care since being discharged from the military. Screening all vets coming through VA medical facilities for sexual trauma is a standard practice.

Here are more statistics referenced in the report [via Reuters and USA Today]:|

76 percent of women who've had previous sexual trauma reported mental health problems, 51 percent of which include some form of PTSD.
47 percent of women without a history of sexual trauma reported mental health problems, 22 percent of which include some form of PTSD.
Women with military-related sexual trauma experiences have a 59 percent higher risk of mental health problems.
Men with military-related sexual trauma experiences have a 40 percent higher risk of mental health problems.
One in seven female vets reported an instance of military sexual trauma.
Just under one percent of male vets reported an instance of military sexual trauma.

The study covered 125,000 veterans seeking treatment from the VA between October 2001 and October 2007. Active duty soldiers were not included because the VA is not involved with their care. Additionally, the specific types of sexual trauma were not included, only the number of occurrences.

Reuters spoke to the new report's co-author Rachel Kimerling:

Kimerling said in a telephone interview the term "military sexual trauma" covers a range of events from coerced sex to outright rape or threatening and unwelcome sexual advances...

..."If you think about military service where you are living and working so closely with the same people, that even if it is not sexual assault ... it is possible that severe sexual harassment is just as traumatic," she said...
...Kimerling said that may mean many veterans are unaware they can be helped and she said she hoped more would come forward to seek treatment.
"There are dedicated health care services for military sexual trauma at every VA facility across the nation," she said.

Sexual trauma can lead to depression, anxiety, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder, Kimerling said.

"We know there are effective, evidence-based treatments for them that are used in VA," she added.

Additionally, USA Today wrote of the likelihood female service members will report sexual trauma at all:

Many women are afraid to report the assaults, says Anita Sanchez of the Miles Foundation, a non-profit that provides services to victims of military-related trauma. Fewer than a third of women who come to Miles for help after sexual assaults say they've told the military, she says.

"A typical scenario is it's either a supervisor or someone at her level, in the same military unit. If you come forward, you're tattle-telling on a comrade. Women have told me about the sneers, the sarcastic comments. They can find themselves ostracized," says Sanchez, and when other women see this, the lesson isn't lost on them.

For a detailed introduction to military sexual trauma read this post from last year where I interviewed an expert on the subject.

In the News: Russia Still Has Marine Humvees, Recruits Q&A, and More Vet Political Ads

David Botti — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:43 GMT

A roundup of military and veterans stories worth taking a look at:

Five U.S. Marine Corps humvees seized by Russian forces when they entered Georgia earlier this summer still haven't been returned:

The Humvees were taken Aug. 19 during Russia’s assault on the Georgian port of Poti, said Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker, a spokesman for U.S. European Command. The vehicles were in Georgia awaiting commercial transport back to the U.S. following Operation Immediate Response, a multinational training exercise in July involving Georgian and U.S. forces. [Marine Corps Times]

Last week New York Magazine went down to the iconic Times Square recruiting station in New York City for some Q & A with new Army recruits on their way to boot camp. The interviews were spurred by news the Army has passed its recruiting goals for the past three years. The magazine described its subjects as: "four local boys and one Goth girl from Alabama in New York for the first time, all ages 17 to 23." Excerpt:

Chris Biener, 21, Bohemia, Long Island:

New York: So you leave for Army Reserves boot camp next Monday. What'll you do until then?
CB: Hang out with some friends.
New York: What have you been doing up to now?
CB: I went to Stonybrook University and played football there for the first semester, then I went to Suffolk Community College, then I started working and going to school, back and forth, then I decided to do this.
New York: Why didn't you stay in college?
CB: I kept switching my major, which kept putting me back. So I worked at a swimming-pool store.
New York: Why are you joining the military?
CB: I almost did it straight out of high school, but my parents wanted me to go to college. I always wanted to join growing up.
New York: Why?
CB: I've always played sports, but there's no team after high school. So this is a big team to join.
New York: What's your big dream?
CB: I'm going to be an LPN, a nurse. So when I get out [of the military], I know I'll get a good job. And if I stay in, there'll always be people who need help.
New York: We're in two wars right now. You may go and be seriously physically or mentally damaged or die. Does that affect your decision?
CB: I used to think about it, but then I realized I'll be trained enough to probably get away from that situation, so if it happens, it happens.
New York: How would you characterize the situation [in Iraq] right now?
CB: We should be there, but the people don't want us there. It's kind of up in the air.
New York: Should we reinstitute the draft?
CB: No, I think the turnout's positive enough with volunteer people. With a draft you have an Army with people who don't want to be there. If it's volunteer, you'll get 100 percent out of all of them.
New York: Would you pick Iraq or Afghanistan to be deployed to?
CB: Iraq. There seems to be more going on. It'd be more fun. As a nurse, there'd be more jobs for me to do.
[Daily Intel]

A Jewish Army recruit has been transferred to a new training battalion after his involvement in incidents of verbal and physical harassment by other recruits and drill sergeants over his religion. The military is not providing a specific reason for why the recruit was transferred, though his father told the Associated Press it was because his son didn't feel safe.

Handman began basic training Aug. 29 at Fort Benning in Columbus. He soon wrote a letter to his parents in which he said, “I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion.” He told them he feared for his safety.
Handman’s parents contacted U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who forwarded their concerns to the Army. Four days after commanders interviewed Handman about being harassed, he was beaten in a laundry room near his barracks and treated at the Army post’s hospital.
Manganaro said investigators don’t believe religious bigotry was the motive for Handman being attacked, though she could not explain why...The investigation of Handman’s allegations of harassment found that one drill sergeant had ordered Handman to remove his yarmulke, which he wore with his uniform, as he ate in a dining hall. Another had called him “Juden,” the German word for Jews. [AP]

A new campaign ad by the group VoteVets criticizes Sen. John McCain for skipping a crucial GI Bill vote. In the ad the veteran remarks: "Vet to vet, Senator McCain. When you put money from your rich friends ahead of vets like me how is that country first?"

A few weeks ago I posted a pro-McCain ad featuring a wounded Iraq veteran. I'm reposting it here for you to compare how veterans from two different ways of thinking voice support for their respective candidates.

The widow of an Iraq veteran who committed suicide after returning from the war is suing the federal government for negligence. The deceased veteran, Donald Woodward, 23, made three suicide attempts and was seeking treatment at a VA hospital. His wife said VA doctors were slow to diagnose her husband's psychiatric condition and did not schedule follow-up visits. Woodward, at the time, was in VA out-patient care for depression.

"I intend to make them make changes," said his mother, Lori Woodward. "I have too many friends whose kids are in Iraq. I have a nephew now in Iraq, in the same unit, and I can't have my family go through this again."
Alison Aikele, a VA spokeswoman in Washington, said the agency does not typically comment on pending litigation. [AP]

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.

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.

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."

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 Legislation For Female Veterans Care

David Botti — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:12:01 GMT

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

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

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

The bill, titled the Womens Health Improvement Act of 2008, comes as the number of women using VA healthcare facilities is ever increasing. According to a press release by Sen. Murray's office, the VA estimates female patients will double in the next five years. The press release further quotes Sen. Murray:

“As the Department of Veterans Affairs works to ensure that those who serve our Nation are not left behind, it is essential for them to recognize the physical, mental and reproductive health challenges that face women veterans may require a different menu of services, delivered in a different way than the VA has grown accustomed to."

Writing on TheHill.com earlier this month, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) offered up a helpful set of statistics on just how many women veterans are out there serving, or having recently served:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A Roundup of Iraq Anniversary Coverage

David Botti — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:13:34 GMT

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

On Sunday The New York Times gave former Baghdad bureau chief John F. Burns a few column inches to give his take on where the war has taken us. Burns penned this article at the war's outset which I've always considered to be an amazing piece of journalism. For Sunday's article, Burns, who spent five years in Iraq, reflects on his position as a journalist covering the war; and on the larger meaning for both the U.S. and Iraq. As his opening line puts it ("Five years on, it seems positively surreal"), Burns seems in awe of the course the war has taken; and frustrated over miscalculations that occurred. He writes of watching the first U.S. air strikes from a Baghdad roof:

...from that first impact, among many on the roof, the mood was scarcely one of cool detachment, or at least not as cautioned as it might have been by the longer-term implications of what we were seeing. Part of it, no doubt, was the air show — the sheer, astonishing, overwhelming demonstration of power, more like an act of God than man, unleashing in those watching from the roof something approaching awe. But the larger part, the one that seems surreal now in the light of all that has followed, was the sense that, with the beginning of the end of Saddam Hussein’s evil, the suffering of millions of ordinary Iraqis that we had chronicled, and pitied, was ending.

For an international view of the fifth anniversary, take a listen to four top BBC journalists who discuss what arose from the rubble of Saddam's regime, and the wider impact on other Arab states. The introductory text to the radio documentary has this telling observation:

It's been said that, if 11th September 2001 was the day the world changed for America, then 20th March 2003 was the day America changed for the world.

IAVA blogger Ray Kimball, an Army major and Iraq vet, reflects on leading his men through the opening days of the war and how he still thinks about the choices he made:

Five years later, looking back on it, different fears come to the fore. Did the choices that I made during those weeks shape what happened later? What could I have done differently? I remember distinctly driving by groups of looters who were busy dragging all they could grab out of government buildings. At the time, I decided that it was probably appropriate that ordinary Iraqis, who had been under Saddam’s thumb for so long, were finally getting some of theirs back. We now know that some of that looting destroyed critical infrastructure that would be vital in the coming months in trying to get a new Iraqi government on its feet. Hindsight is always 20-20, and yet, there is still the nagging feeling that I could have made different choices that might have helped lead to different outcomes.

The LA Daily News provided this look at a group using the anniversary to protest the war as part of a larger, worldwide series of such events. While the protest was attended by celebrities, as well as Vietnam vet Ron Kovic (of Born On the Fourth of July), the article offered a particularly telling moment: when two Iraq vets were noticed watching the protest, the reporter notes:

-"We have a surplus of hippies and a shortage of hand grenades," [the vet] said. He said the war cost him his marriage, and that he saw some of his friends die.

-The back of his sign read, "My sacrifice was not in vain."

-Several protesters walked up and greeted him, said he looked angry and offered him a hug - he declined - and asked how they could make him happy

-His response: "Go home."

New Jersey's Gloucester County Times took a look at how the war has affected a wide spectrum of people: from veterans, to family, to a VA worker. Marine Richard J. Maxie Jr. told the paper:

Despite the calls to bring the troops home, the constant media attention surrounding the war and the coming election, Maxie is steadfast in believing that the troops have accomplished something good in Iraq.

"They only see the bad things," said Maxie said of the media's portrayal of the war. "They don't really know kids are going to school and the Iraqis can go into the streets and not have to watch over their shoulders all the time.

Angelo Romeo, a local VA director, told the paper his impressions of what the newest vets coming home face:

Romeo says of the ones he has talked to that most of them are holding their experiences inside. He recalled hearing an instance about the friend of a new veteran who was complaining about a stressful day at work.

The soldier had served as an explosives detonation expert.

"I've seen them in social situations with their friends from high school and college. There's a bit of a disconnect."

The Iraq war's fifth anniversary isn't the only Iraq anniversary occurring this week. It was 20 years ago when Saddam Hussein killed at last 5,000 Kurds in chemical bombing attacks.

There's sure to be much more Iraq war anniversary coverage through the week. Stay tuned.

The Latest Military Survey

David Botti — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:01:26 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a fascinating study, and one that can help break down some uniform misconceptions people have of the military. Now that this study is concluded, let's see a survey of 3,400 corporals and sergeants.

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.

In Advance of the War's 5th Anniversary

David Botti — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:02:41 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Vets and Defense Spending Through Proposed Budget

David Botti — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:57:55 GMT

President Bush's release of his $3 trillion budget yesterday included a number of veterans' and military-related provisions. Here's a few of particular interest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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