What does our military mean to us?

The comments to my post about Lisa Pagan (original article here) are fascinating and show conflicting ideas about our soldiers and the role of the military.

I'll first point out that the military does honor many requests for hardship and exemption:

Since September 11, 2001, the Army has recalled about 25,000 soldiers. Nearly half requested a delay or a full exemption. Some just wanted to finish their school semester before reporting. Others had financial or medical problems that made it difficult to report for duty.

The Army says it granted nearly nine out of 10 delay requests and six out of 10 requests for exemption.

but there still needs to be addressed the undercurrents of why Lisa Pagan and her actions arouse such emphatic reactions.

There is the entire morass about women in the service, whether or not they get unfair treatment, whether they use their biological abilities to escape service or are harmed by them. The conflicts are real and unsolvable.

But what do we expect our military to achieve? What do we think they represent to us? Do those who want our soldiers to be heroic acknowledge their human frailties? Do those who have never been in the service understand the pride and sense of commitment and accomplishment soldiers have and understand the horror and grit of real war?

When is a soldier actually done with his/her service, when they are honorably discharged? When should the government consider itself to have been paid back for training a soldier? How many years does one not have kids, not plan too far ahead, not commit to an educational plan, a job because one might just possibly be called back? How many tours of duty are too much, 4? 5? 7? Are young people who voluntarily sign up told the complete truth about how this action will affect their lives, how they will be owned by the government apparently forever? How long can the stop-loss program keep soldiers who are done with their commitment? What does the misuse of this affect the morale of the troops?

When you hear soldiers talking about being sent back to Iraq with severe medical or mental issues, when the tours of duty are relentless and stateside times are shorter and shorter, when they lie about how soldiers died in battle, lie for propaganda's sake, when memos are leaked exposing the plan to deny diagnosis of brain damage for soldiers hurt in battle, when PTSD is ignored, when desertions and suicides by soldiers rise alarmingly, when Veteran's hospitals are moldy, neglected, shred medical documents, and try to cut costs rather than help, when wounded soldiers are deliberately refused help on confusing paperwork, and homelessness for vets has become a real issue, does this encourage a proud and heroic military stance? You think soldiers want to literally put their lives on the line to be then treated like used tissues and tossed aside?

To those who think we are the mightest super power on earth and have the military power to prove it, you haven't been paying attention. Those who get angry when accosted with the brutal facts about waste and incompetence in the military are in denial. Those who immediately attack soldiers who speak out against the war, who denounce their patriotism as fake, mock those who have moral qualms, expose their own deep insecurities. The military has been forced to accept rabid white supremists and radical religious crusaders because recruitment is so low. They have been forced to send soldiers weakened by several endless tours of duty back again into horrifically stressful situations. Soldiers have been refusing to patrol.

The reasons why we even invaded Iraq, why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan now are ever changing, the reasons for not leaving murky. The Iraqi people do not want us there. We have promised much and delivered little to the Afghanis. Victory is undefinable and often tied to how the Vietnam war ended.

We are in two unwinnable wars with a broken military and out of control spending.

It's finally time for an assessment.

Why on earth would any soldier willingly step back into such a meaningless war?

Why?

-----------

Update:

Veterans for America:
19 More Months in Iraq: How to Bring Immediate Relief

As President Obama finalizes his Iraq withdrawal plans, Veterans for America urges President Obama to address the dire conditions on military bases and in communities here at home. Multiple tours, inadequate dwell time between tours, the continued use of stop loss orders, and the heavy use of the National Guard all risk further damaging our military and undermining the faith that servicemembers and their families have in their civilian and military leaders. Many of our brave servicemembers and their families need immediate relief.

At least a dozen Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the majority of troops are withdrawn. Virtually all units will be on at least their second tour and many will not have had adequate rest between their tours. Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin will all send citizen soldier BCT’s to Iraq over the next several months.

Oregon is scheduled to send the 41st BCT to war for a third time since 9/11. Many Oregon Guard members have not had the three years at home between tours that President Obama promised while campaigning.

As we continue to churn our troops for another 19 months, VFA urges civilian and military leaders to provide adequate dwell time for every servicemember and to cease our heavy reliance overseas on our National Guard. Our troops, their families, and their communities deserve no less.

The veterans begin to speak louder and as one

“The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it,” said Liam Madden, a former Marine and member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. “That’s left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like.”

Iraq Veterans Against the War argues that well-publicised incidents of U.S. brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire family of Iraqis in the town of Haditha are not the isolated incidents perpetrated by “a few bad apples”, as many politicians and military leaders have claimed. They are part of a pattern, the group says, of “an increasingly bloody occupation”.

“The problem that we face in Iraq is that policymakers in leadership have set a precedent of lawlessness where we don’t abide by the rule of law, we don’t respect international treaties, so when that atmosphere exists it lends itself to criminal activity,” argues former U.S. Army Sergeant Logan Laituri, who served a tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 before being discharged as a conscientious objector.

Laituri told IPS that precedent of lawlessness makes itself felt in the rules of engagement handed down by commanders to soldiers on the front lines. When he was stationed in Samarra, for example, he said one of his fellow soldiers shot an unarmed man while he walked down the street.

“The problem is that that soldier was not committing a crime as you might call it because the rules of engagement were very clear that no one was supposed to be walking down the street,” he said. “But I have a problem with that. You can’t tell a family to leave everything they know so you can bomb the shit out of their house or their city. So while he definitely has protection under the law, I don’t think that legitimates that type of violence.”

[snip]

In one of the most famous antiwar speeches of the era, Kerry concluded: “Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be — and these are his words — ‘the first president to lose a war’. We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Nicosia says U.S. citizens and veterans find themselves in a similar situation today.

“The majority of the American people are very dissatisfied with the Iraq war now and would be happy to get out of it. But Americans are bred deep into their psyches to think of America as a good country and, I think, much harder than just the hurdle of getting troops out of Iraq is to get Americans to realise the terrible things we do in the name of the United States.”

And the list keeps getting longer and longer:

....American Casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan .... 1,475 battlefield casualties the Pentagon reports for the month of February. The new data, available here for Iraq and here for Afghanistan show 73,518 American servicemen and women have been killed, wounded, injured, or fallen seriously ill in the two wars. In addition, at least 263,909 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have gone to the VA for medical treatment and at least 245,034 have filed a disability claim.

And this is the treatment they get when they get home:

According to the VFA, the problem of military doctors refusing to back soldiers with mental health problems is widespread: "VFA's work across the country has confirmed that soldiers often need their doctors to be stronger advocates for improved treatment by their commanders and comrades. For instance, soldiers need doctors who are willing to push back against commanders who doubt the legitimacy of combat-related mental health injuries."

While talking to soldiers at Fort Drum, VFA also discovered "considerable stigma against mental health treatment within the military and pressure within some units to deny mental health problems as a result of combat.

Some soldiers who had been in the military for more than a decade stated that they lied on mental health questionnaires for fear that if they disclosed problems, it would reduce their likelihood of being promoted."

Soldiers at Fort Drum are not alone. In an earlier report titled "Trends in Treatment of America's Wounded Warriors" VFA disclosed that leaders of the military mental health treatment system have been warning Department of Defense leadership of the magnitude of the mental health crisis that is brewing.

A report by the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) that was released last May found that the percentage of soldiers suffering "severe stress, emotional, alcohol or family problem[s]" had risen more than 85 percent since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. MHAT also found that 28 percent of soldiers who had experienced high-intensity combat were screening positive for acute stress (i.e., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD).

Finally, MHAT disclosed that soldiers who had been deployed more than once were 60 percent more likely to screen positive for acute stress (i.e., PTSD) when compared to soldiers on their first deployment.

Using them up and throwing them out not by incompetence, but by design.

Flat soccer balls to Iraq

Describes the Bush administration's plan for this misadventure exactly: (Via ::Matthew)

The military is not clear about who came up with the idea to win over Iraqis with soccer balls. A March 2004 press report from the Pentagon describes a unit of the 1st Armored Division handing out soccer balls in the Karadah district of Baghdad. "The children were thrilled to receive new soccer balls as soldiers tossed the balls to the boys and girls," the report said. In a December 2004 release, Kiowa helicopter pilots with the 1st Cavalry Division are described tossing soccer balls to grateful kids in an operation aptly dubbed "Operation Soccer Ball." Spc. Thom Cassidy, who worked in the logistics shop in Reppenhagen's battalion, recalled that giving out soccer balls to the kids around Baquba was passed down from higher command to a battalion colonel at the base. In any event, Cassidy said, "this was a very, very Army idea. This was the prototypical Army idea."

At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, Reppenhagen and his fellow soldiers encountered a five-ton truck stacked with large cardboard boxes. They began to unload the truck and open the boxes. There were maybe 50 soccer balls in each box. But the balls had not been inflated. They were all flat. Reppenhagen scoured the boxes. No pumps. What was worse, nobody had bothered to pack the needles to inflate the balls.

Resourceful soldiers that they were, the men carried some of the balls to mechanics in the motor pool. "They tried to pump them up with tire pumps," Reppenhagen said. But the mechanics had the equipment to inflate Humvee tires, not soccer balls.

Frustrated, the soldiers asked their commanding officers what to do. None were sure. They kept calling their own superiors. Cassidy suggested that they order pumps and needles, which would arrive in about two weeks. The battalion colonel quickly tired of the whole discussion and said he wasn't about to requisition soccer ball pumps. "He decided this was a waste of time," Cassidy said. "His thought was, 'Iraqis should be grateful.' Not, 'They will be grateful' -- 'They should be.'" Finally, the lieutenant commanded the troops to deliver the balls to the children. "He was pretty much like, 'Shut up and hand out these soccer balls,'" Reppenhagen said.

It seemed crazy. "We were so pissed," said Reppenhagen. But orders are orders. When you are told to hand out flat soccer balls, you hand out flat soccer balls. So the soldiers who served in 2nd Battalion, 63rd Armored Regiment piled the flat soccer balls into their Humvees. Driving through the Sunni Triangle's war-torn towns, they tossed the deflated balls to children, who crowded the sides of the roads, running beside the canals and lush greenery that lined the banks of the Diyala River. "Kids were swarming us," Reppenhagen said. "We went to a couple of schools and delivered stacks of them. Everybody we saw got a flat soccer ball."

Which, of course, the kids quickly figured out. Pretty soon, Reppenhagen recalled, "They were like, 'What are you doing? What are we supposed to do with this?" When the Humvees began to retrace their route back to the base, the futility of the operation was becoming painfully clear. "Kids were wearing these soccer balls as hats," Reppenhagen said. "They were kicking them around. They were in trees. They were floating in canals. They were everywhere. There were so many soccer balls."

Today, Reppenhagen still cringes when he recalls the soccer ball operation, which to him says so much about the entire U.S. occupation in Iraq. He recently left his job at Veterans for America, a veterans' advocacy group, and currently serves on the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War. A spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division, Lt. Col. Christian T. Kubik, said Reppenhagen's battalion commander does not recall the soccer ball operation. In an e-mail, he took issue with the characterization of soldiers blindly following orders when they handed out the deflated balls.

"America is filled with veterans who know that this comic view of soldiers dumbly following orders is completely without basis and almost laughable in its propagation of stereotype," Kubik wrote. "Soldiers are Americans, not automatons." He added: "To focus on the air in the balls, or lack thereof, undermines the American spirit of generosity and completely misses the point of giving."

Reppenhagen said he certainly knows what he and his platoon got when they drove to the base: The Iraqi kids were expressing their hearts and minds with rocks and stones. "On the way back, kids were throwing rocks at us," he said. "I assumed it was because we gave them deflated soccer balls. Maybe if we had given them inflated soccer balls, they would have been out playing soccer."

Killing the messenger

Pentagon punishes soldiers for complaining about care in Walter Reed:

Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.

They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access.

The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed. And 120 permanent-duty soldiers are expected to arrive by mid-March to take control of the Medical Hold Unit, the soldiers said.

As of Tuesday afternoon, Army public affairs did not respond to a request sent Sunday evening to verify the personnel changes.

The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.

As Mustang Bobby asks: It will all go away if you don't talk about it, right?

Update: Think Progress shows us where the wounded soldiers live and where the Walter Reed commander lives.

Update: Crooks and Liars notes that military families are sinking into debt and some vets are homeless.

Update:

Last October, Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was taken to Walter Reed by a friend concerned about outpatient treatment. She attended a weekly meeting, called Girls Time Out, at which wives, girlfriends and mothers of soldiers exchange stories and offer support.

According to three people who attended the gathering, Rumsfeld listened quietly. Some of the women did not know who she was. At the end of the meeting, Rumsfeld asked one of the staff members whether she thought that the soldiers her husband was meeting on his visits had been handpicked to paint a rosy picture of their time there. The answer was yes.

When Walter Reed officials found out that Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her -- a woman who had volunteered there many times -- that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.

Pandagon gets an email from a soldier

Which mentions a word I've been using to describe the stop-loss program: Slavery.

I am a soldier serving at Fort Hood. I signed up in 2003 for a 5 year contract (I should ETS on 1/15/08). I joined at 32 years old to serve my country. I have been to Iraq twice already and was looking forward to start terminal leave in Dec of 2007.

Now after my unit returned we were told our company was being moved and that all the soldiers had to go to another company. This new company has not deployed in over a year so on paper it looks like we have been home longer.

I asked not to be sent here since I knew I would be stop lossed. Basically the answer was no and too bad.

You see they no longer care about soldiers serving honorably and doing right by us. What they are doing is finding a loophole to extend soldiers in their contracts for a year or more. This in turn makes it look like the army is not short of soldiers.

Let me give you the truth. The army is scrambling to find soldiers ad morale is getting worse. Not as much due to the deployments (that’s part of it) but also to the knowledge that when our time comes the army can keep us as long as they want.

When I joined the stop loss was not explained to me. Had it been I would never have signed. What they are doing is a form of slavery that we the soldiers can do nothing about. If they needed to stay so badly they could ask me to extend and as a patriot I probably would have but to be forced to with threat of jail and the loss of my freedom then I have no choice.

Finally, I should note that I have never had any discipline problems and even volunteered for my second deployment becuase the company I went with needed soldiers. While in Iraq I served honorably and have seen combat on several occasions. I even volunteered to go in January so I would not be stop lossed but was denied.

The command cares little for the soldiers here and has a policy in place that is wrong in a supposedly volunteer army.

Update: Reminds me to bring up this journal which was written by a soldier while in Afghanistan and then at home.

What a difference a day makes

And what a difference this preznit makes:

The Guard troops have been told that in order to be eligible for the education benefits they expect, they had to serve 730 days in Iraq. They served 729.

Nearly half the members of one of the longest serving U.S. military units in Iraq are not eligible for a more generous military educational benefit, with some falling one day short of eligibility. [...]

All 2,600 of the soldiers, who returned this year from Iraq, are eligible for money for school under the GI Bill. But nearly half discovered they weren't eligible for a more generous package of benefits available to other soldiers.

Minnesota's congressional delegation is apoplectic, and the Army has vowed to look into the matter, but the troops are understandably suspicious that they were deliberately brought home after 729 days so the Pentagon could deny them GI Bill benefits.

Keep an eye on this one.

I'm sure it was just coincidence! The Bush administration and the Pentagon wouldn't do that to our brave soldiers who risked their lives to fight for liberty and justice.... They would pay the highest possible wage! They would make sure our soldiers had the best equipment and the best armor! They would put our wounded soldiers into the best hospitals with the latest technology! They would honor the dead by letting the public view their caskets as they came home. They would have politicians attend the funerals. They would build a memorial to those that fell in battle that reminded people of the reasons why they fought and why they had died. And because Bush has claimed this is the fight of the century, a fight to preserve our way of life and to protect our nation, a fight of good against evil, obviously Bush has activated the draft.

Bush has done all these things, right? ... RIGHT?

No? NO??

There it is, folks, as plain as day. Bush does not give a flying fuck about our soldiers, the protection of this nation, the spread of democracy.

What he cares about is denying soldiers benefits so that he can give more money to his cronies.

Somebody in the bowels of the Pentagon responds

To my post about General Richard Cody emphasizing the 'All Volunteer' military.

Citiwindo, a blogger name created in April 2008 and whose ip address showed (s)he is connected to the Pentagon said this in comments:

The last thing GEN Cody wants is to bring back the Draft. If you look at all of his previous statements in hearings and in media - he STRONGLY opposes the Draftt. He served in a draft Army, and knows how bad it can get. He made that statement last week to get Congress to get off their duffs and give the Army the money it needs to win this War, and to take care of the Soldiers and families. Congress continues to underfund this Army and cut key programs, FCS, etc. His message has always been the same. Grow the Army, fund it appropriately in the BASE budget, and stop trying to win this war on the cheap thru supplementals.

He served in a draft Army, and knows how bad it can get.

What do you mean? Do you mean those people who don't volunteer tend to be hostile about fighting incompetently run wars? And volunteers apparently will go uncomplainingly and willingly to their deaths because they ... volunteered? Or do you mean the fact that activating the draft would bring the wrath of all voters down upon the heads of politicians? Or could it be you are suggesting the draft gathers up people who shouldn't be in the military? Kinda like those soldiers who won WWII?

He made that statement last week to get Congress to get off their duffs and give the Army the money it needs to win this War, and to take care of the Soldiers and families.

Hmm. I understand the statement about taking care of our soldiers, like not cutting veteran's benefits which Republicans have done several times during the Bush administration. Besides the Walter Reed scandal which was mirrored in every other VA hospital across the nation, just recently we found soldiers who were suffering traumatic brain injuries were being sent back to the war and that some VA employees were told to no longer help disabled soldiers with the filing their paperwork. Is that the kind of getting off of the duff you mean? Or could it be the wonderful new GI Bill Senator Webb is trying to get passed? Why isn't McCain supporting this?

And yet you are blaming Congress? Is it because it is now run by a Democratic majority? You're not blaming the administration that got us into this mess? Not the people who thought this war would be a cakewalk? Not the neocons who thought they'd take out Hussein and pop in Chalabi and everything would be over in six weeks? Not the idiots who try to stifle the soldiers voices when they come back to the US? You aren't blaming the Bush administration but Congress? How odd.

So the plan is to keep sending the volunteers back again and again on their third... sixth... twelfth deployment while they slowly go mad or die? Is your response: So?

We have lost trillions ... TRILLIONS of dollars in this unwarranted, unsupported, unnecessary war of Bush and Cheney's. The neocon wet dream of all wet dreams was to take out Saddam Hussein and wedge ourselves into control in the middle of the oil lands. Well, we are now wedged between Iraq and the Eternal War on a Noun with no clear way out.

So. Just how would more money solve this problem? What could be done with even MORE trillions tossed into the quagmire that we haven't yet tried?

Do you think you could define what winning this war would entail? How do we win the Iraq war which is actually about twenty different little wars: the sectarian vs nationalist war, Shiite vs Shiite factions, Sunni vs Shiite, Kurds vs Turks, Kurds vs Shiite and Sunni, tribal loyalities, revenge, Saudi Arabia vs Iran posturing, warlords jockeying for power and a say in the new government, and al-Qaeda vs everybody else?

I don't think I have ever heard anyone even good ol' Petraeus dare to even attempt to define what victory in Iraq would look like and how it could be achieved. It's always just six months away. Wait another few months, four months, six months.... wait until Bush is no longer President....

Can you define your statement: winning this war? Because, by defining victory, you must then explain the real reason we attacked and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

I don't think you can.

YouTube taunts recorded in Iraq

By Juba the sniper:

Juba might be called the Bogeyman of Baghdad. He's a star of the insurgent videos, a sniper who likes to boast electronically of his accomplishments.

Probably, Juba is a compilation of many snipers. His targeting and shooting of U.S. soldiers is meticulously and melodramatically recorded on camera. Each propaganda posting is accompanied by swelling music, elaborate graphics and enough footage of soldiers crumpling to the ground to send the signal that Juba is watching and waiting.

There's no question U.S. troops are also watching Juba, on the net, from their Iraqi bases. Some are even posting video replies — images of helmets with bullet holes in them, a retaliatory "You didn't get me, I'm still here" taunt.

This is the modern equivalent of First World War soldiers barking threats at each other across the trenches.

[snip]

...the Pentagon has just imposed new restrictions on its soldiers in theatre. It's now forbidding them from using military servers to access at least a dozen popular file-sharing sites, including YouTube and MySpace.

It's also imposed strict new rules on blogging. This will indeed limit what soldiers can see and send.

The Pentagon insists this is all about security. It doesn't want operations jeopardized. And it's concerned that all the uploading and downloading of imagery will slow or crash military servers. It is adamant it's not doing this for censorship reasons.

"The whole thing's a rotten idea." That was the immediate response of Spc. Colby Buzzell. He's a skateboarder turned gunner on leave now from serving in Iraq.

Buzzell was one of the first to have his own blog from the war in Iraq — milbloggers they're called — and his postings became an award-winning book entitled My War: Killing Time in Iraq.

He now joins the ranks of those who don't buy the Pentagon's argument and think the military planners are simply panicking.

"They are blaming it on bandwidth and operational security." But the real reason, he suggests, is so military commanders "can control what kind of information gets released back home."

His take, though, is that "I don't think it will permanently shut bloggers or video-posters down. I think a lot of soldiers will find a way to get around the policy." And he's probably right.

Already, some military personnel are simply waiting until they get home to post their Iraq compilations. Others know that the Pentagon ban hasn't cast a wide enough net. There are still many internet-sharing sites that are still popular and still accessible from military servers.

Certainly the Juba videos make it through somehow.

There has been no war as wired as this one and no soldiers as free as today's to talk about how they feel and what they see and do almost as soon as it's happened.

The internet was originally conceived by military planners but even military use of it has slipped from their control. Once again, Iraq has changed everything.

The day after and the day after that

It's not just the anniversary of the war in Iraq but everyday that we will look for news of our soldiers and the fighting. It may have 'slipped' ever so conveniently off the front pages of our mainstream news, but we will never forgive nor ever forget.

Excellent coverage the war and history of Iraq:

By Blue Girl of Blue Girl, Red State

Pygalgia

DistributorCap

And on the Winter Soldier event:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Bill W. of Crooks and Liars:

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan was a 4-day event from March 13-16 in DC that brought together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the news media has unsurprisingly ignored the event much as they did its predecessor in 1971, this time we have digital media and the intertubes to document it and bring it to a wider audience.

Bill W. has a transcript from a soldier Will Prysner:

Those who send us to war do not have to pull a trigger or lob a mortar round. They do not have to fight the war. They merely have to sell the war. They need a public who is willing to send their soldiers into harm’s way and they need soldiers who are willing to kill or be killed without question. They can spend millions on a single bomb, but that bomb only becomes a weapon when the ranks in the military are willing to follow orders to use it. They can send every last soldier anywhere on earth, but there will only be a war if soldiers are willing to fight, and the ruling class: the billionaires who profit from human suffering care only about expanding their wealth, controlling the world economy, understand that their power lies only in their ability to convince us that war, oppression, and exploitation is in our interests. They understand that their wealth is dependent on their ability to convince the working class to die to control the market of another country. And convincing us to kill and die is based on their ability to make us think that we are somehow superior. Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, have nothing to gain from this occupation.

The vast majority of people living in the US have nothing to gain from this occupation. In fact, not only do we have nothing to gain, but we suffer more because of it. We lose limbs, endure trauma, and give our lives. Our families have to watch flag draped coffins lowered into the earth. Millions in this country without healthcare, jobs, or access to education must watch this government squander over $450 million a day on this occupation. Poor and working people in this country are sent to kill poor and working people in another country to make the rich richer, and without racism soldiers would realize that they have more in common with the Iraqi people than they do with the billionaires who send us to war.

Hipparchia of Over the Cliff, Onto the Rocks and her other blog: War Without Comment. Watch the videos about soldiers in Vietnam speaking then and now. A devastatingly true comment made (3:23 1st video) made by an ex-soldier:

"I've been all over the world and the most politically ignorant people of any country I've ever been to is the U.S.A."

Time to find out what is going on. Ignorance will be no excuse for the horrors done in our name.

Honor our soldiers on Veteran's Day

by getting rid of that gas-guzzling SUV and those moronic magnetic yellow ribbons. You want to keep your MPGs (Marines per gallon) low. Vote when you can. Pay your taxes. Demand that our government gives our veterans support and medical care. Ask for a GI Bill so that we don't have another generation of homeless vets wandering our streets. Tell Congress to stop giving money to Halliburton and start giving funds to assist soldiers.

Acknowledge our freedom is balanced on the backs of the citizens in uniform. Remember in this present war young men and women died and are dying in horrific violence, in deathly muted mental anguish, in hospital beds, in the sand, in strange lands, for ever changing reasons in a vanity war and for no noble cause.

But they died, are dying and will die doing the job that keeps on shifting, giving their most heroic efforts, doing what was asked of them and doing it brilliantly. Just because they volunteered does not mean their lives have no value. Our soldiers put their lives into the hands of the Bush administration, to be used well and responsibly when we need to protect our nation and our people. The Bush administration has no respect for them and regards them as cannon fodder, to be used repeatedly until useless, and then tossed.

Our soldiers do not see any sacrifice on the part of the American people. No one is tightening the belt, saving the cans, sending the care packages, planting the victory gardens, saving money. There is no one paying the price but our soldiers and their families.

Only our soldiers are at war, our nation is not.

Our soldiers are heroes. The Bush administration is not.

Honor our veterans. Know why we have such a day. Remember what it cost.


Update: Acknowledging the women vets.

Brain tests for soldiers

To see if they are faithful to Our Dear Leader?:

Before they leave for Iraq, thousands of troops with the 101st Airborne Division line up at laptop computers to take a test: basic math, matching numbers and symbols, and identifying patterns. They press a button quickly to measure response time.

It's all part of a fledgling Army program that records how soldiers' brains work when healthy, giving doctors baseline data to help diagnose and treat the soldiers if they suffer a traumatic brain injury -- the signature injury of the Iraq war.

"This allows the Army to be much more proactive," said Lt. Col. Mark McGrail, division surgeon for the 101st. "We don't want to wait until the soldier is getting out of the Army to say, 'But I've had these symptoms.'"

The mandatory brain-function tests are starting with the 101st at Fort Campbell and are expected to spread to other military bases in the next couple of months. Commanders at each base will decide whether to adopt the program.

The tests provide a standard, objective measurement for each soldier's reaction time, their short-term memory and other cognitive skills. That data would be used when the soldiers come home to identify mild brain trauma that can often go unnoticed and untreated.

One veterans group wants to ensure the Army doesn't use the results to deny treatment by claiming that soldiers' problems came from pre-existing conditions.

"We certainly think these tests should not be used to reduce the responsibility that the Army has to treat the soldiers who have served," said Jason Forrester, director of policy for Veterans for America.

Actually it's a good thing to test healthy brains against those that have suffered concussions from IEDs, etc. And luckily a veterans group is watching the military to make sure the data is not misused.

I mean... when has this administration misused personal information for its own benefit?

I'm going to predict the future....

We will be doing splendidly in Iraq in just a few .... (/yanks out a few more Cat5 cables) .... more minutes....



Jeraylyn Merritt of Firedoglake:

Iraq’s interior ministry has decided to bar news photographers and camera operators from the scenes of bomb attacks, operations director Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf said on Sunday (local time).

His announcement was the latest in a series of attempts to curtail press coverage of the ongoing conflict, which has already attracted criticism from international human rights bodies.

That got me thinking, how real is the War in Iraq to Americans who don’t have a loved one fighting in the conflict? Where has the news coverage been of the gory daily details?

For those of you old enough to remember the media coverage of the Vietnam War, you’ll remember how vividly it was brought to us every evening on our television screens by the nightly news programs.

Without the internet or e-mail, a massive anti-war movement grew. I don’t think anyone doubts that it contributed to the war’s end.

By contrast, we hardly ever see the damage inflicted in Iraq up close and personal on television news. The war has become something we hear about in headlines, like “5 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq” and “37 Civilians Killed by Roadside Bomb,” but we don’t actually see it.

Maybe we should. Maybe the visceral effect of watching people die and be maimed, which is a daily occurrence in Iraq, would spark greater outrage here at home and force Congress to act to end this war once and for all.

So, what do you think? Is the media doing its part to expose the atrocities in Iraq? Has self-restraint dictated media coverage to date or is the Administration controlling what the media shows?

This new embargo on showing bombings in Iraq is very troubling. I think Americans need to see the blood and gore to absorb the reality of war and the lives lost.

And Bryan of Why Now?:

[05/11/07] Laura Smith-Spark, BBC News, Washington: US military takes Iraq war to YouTube

The US military has taken the war in Iraq into cyberspace, with the launch of its own channel on the video-sharing website YouTube.

[05/14/07] Rob Watson, BBC defence and security correspondent: US blocks soldiers from websites

The US military is to block troops from using YouTube and MySpace and 11 other popular websites for sharing photos, video clips and messages.

[05/02/07] Army Regulation 530–1: Operations Security (OPSEC) - commanders must approve blog posts and e-mails.

So, who wants to bet that Commander Guy, the Big Manly Surge, and his Plan to Win will suddenly be doing super-de-duper well?

Update 5/15: Think Progress:

As of yesterday, U.S. soldiers are blocked from accessing YouTube, MySpace, and 11 other websites on official Defense Department computers nationwide, “severing some of the most popular ties linking U.S. troops in combat areas to their far-flung relatives and friends, and depriving soldiers of a favorite diversion from the boredom of overseas duty.”

The military has justified the new policy by stating it will “increase network security and protect the use of the bandwidth.” But soldiers are already barred from posting classified material and scholars point out that “the Pentagon could have rationed Web access rather than cut it off entirely.” While troops will still be allowed to visit the sites from non-military computers, “few soldiers in combat areas carry private computers.”

What Bush's war is doing to the soldiers

" Pentagon doctors estimate that 12 percent of the 1.5 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD. Newly revised Defence Department guidelines for service-members with "a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance" say they may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a "treatable" problem.

Many believe President George W. Bush's newly announced plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq will involve the redeployment of soldiers suffering from severe trauma. Press reports indicate Bush wants to implement his "surge" by speeding up previously scheduled redeployments and extending the tours of soldiers already in the field of battle.

That reality has increasing numbers of soldiers taking matters into their own hands.

Between Christmas and New Year's 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide after being informed they'd been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq. In Iraq itself, the military announced on Dec. 30 that soldier Michael Crutchfield of Stockton, California killed himself north of the capital, Baghdad.

The day of his death, he e-mailed his foster brother and confidant, Johnny Sotello, to relate his pain to the remnants of his family still living in the area.

"As you know, there are more people waiting for me to pull this trigger than there are waiting on my return to the states," Crutchfield wrote in a portion of the message, quoted by the Stockton Record.

"I'm done hurting. All my life I've been hurting... end this pain," Crutchfield wrote at the end of his two-page message. "

Turkey advances on the Kurds

But such an action could wildly backfire:

The government acted after 15 soldiers were killed within two days last week, bringing the year's total to 200 such casualties, and public clamor for a strong military response to separatist insurgents.

Turkish troops and military hardware are amassed now along the Iraq border to the southeast.

The United States, the European Union and Russia have advised Turkey against unilateral military action. The Iraqi government has said any Turkish incursion would infringe on its territorial integrity.

For the time being, Turks are not in listening mode. Back in April, Chief of Staff Gen Yasar Buyukanit said a military operation was feasible and advisable, but the government shied away from any move in view of parliamentary elections on July 22. But now, with casualties rising, government spokesman Cemil Cicek announced after an emergency meeting: "Time for words is over."

Funerals of fallen soldiers often turn into rallies for revenge, and calls for a strong military response.
[snip]
Professor Ilter Turan, a leading analyst of Turkish affairs and vice-president of the International Political Science Association, believes Turkey and the US can still work out differences in northern Iraq without a military move by Turkey. "With Turkey determined to crush the PKK, it is feasible that the United States will push Iraqi Kurds to capture and turn over to Turkey one or two top rebel leaders. It will placate Turkish public opinion and avoid a military move by Turkey."

In its approach to northern Iraq, the Turkish fear is that if an oil-rich independent Kurdistan emerges from an Iraqi meltdown, its own Kurds (up to 20% of the population of 72 million) may also make similar demands or at least press for more autonomy, or even a separate homeland entity within Turkey.

Sedat Laciner, head of the independent Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization, says that a Turkish move into northern Iraq would be seen outside of Turkey as "invasion" and "occupation" and could lead to increased trans-boundary Kurdish nationalism affecting also Iran and Syria, both with sizeable Kurdish minorities (four million in Iran, two million in Syria). Iraq counts five million Kurds in its north.

Laciner told IPS that the financial cost to Turkey of an attack into northern Iraq could be US$10 billion in flight of foreign capital, quite apart from the cost of the military operation. The move could also doom Turkey's controversial bid for full EU membership.

Update from the AP:

SIRNAK, Turkey (AP) -- Dozens of Turkish military vehicles loaded with soldiers and heavy weapons rumbled toward the Iraq border on Monday after an ambush by guerrilla Kurds that left eight soldiers missing and killed 12. Iraq's president said the rebels would announce a cease-fire later in the day.

Turkey's military said it had had no contact with the eight soldiers after Sunday's clash and said 34 guerrillas had been killed so far in a counteroffensive. A pro-Kurdish news agency said the eight were captured - a claim that would make it the largest seizure since 1995, when guerrillas grabbed eight soldiers and took them to northern Iraq.

The ambush on Sunday outraged an already frustrated public. Demonstrations erupted across the country and opposition leaders called for an immediate strike against rebel bases in Iraq, despite appeals for restraint from Iraq, the U.S. and European leaders.

You can judge a government

By the way they treat those in need, in their employ, in their military. Pale Rider of Blue Girl, Red State quotes a study:

A new military study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine says soldiers who suffered concussions in Iraq were not only at higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, but also that the depression and PTSD, not the head injuries, may be the cause of ongoing physical symptoms.

And then cites a story of how the military declares 'personality disorders' and denies medical claims of those soldiers who were wounded:

It is the use of the 5-13 discharge to cull injured troops from service and deny them future benefits through the VA.A 5-13 is a psych discharge.It brands the veteran as having a personality disorder, an Axis II disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association. Personality disorders are deemed pre-existing conditions, and therefore the military is absolved of all future responsibility to those veterans.

As if this is not horrible enough, here are some even worse statistics via Paul of Byzigenous Buddhapalian, John Cory of Hoffmania:

The folks who see profit and growth in the numbers of veterans of this war, the Health Care Insurers know an opportunity when they see one. In her December 2007 report Emily Berry for American Medical News gives us a tour by the numbers:

30,000 troops have been wounded in action.
39,000 have been diagnosed with PTSD.
84,000 vets suffer a mental health disorder.
229,000 veterans have sought VA care.
1.4 million troops (active duty and reserves) deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan so far.
Estimates run between $350 billion to $700 billion needed for lifetime care and benefits for veterans.

And now, making the rounds in Washington is a plan that has become known as “The Psychological Kevlar Act of 2007” which reaches out to the pharmaceutical industry to partner with the Department of Defense to use the drug Propranalol to treat symptoms of PTSD even before a soldier succumbs to full blown PTSD. An ounce of prevention after all is worth funding for experimentation, I mean research. A numb soldier is a happy soldier.

If you haven’t visited Penny Coleman you really ought to drop by and read up on her articles. Thanks to Penny and people like my friend Miss Remy, we learn the truth about the terrible sweet beauty we call war. The price – human toll – and numbers.

A CBS study of 45 states over the past 12 years reveals disturbing and tragic patterns of suffering veterans whether Korean War, Vietnam, or the newer versions, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005 alone, there were 6,256 veteran suicides. That’s 120 every week or an average of 17 suicides every day.

The Bush administration has no waiting period to go to war, only waiting lines that take months to treat veterans and provide the health care they need. It is an amazing irony that Bush has presided over the longest delays and waiting periods for veterans in VA history and yet he has generated more veterans faster than most any other administration. As the Democratic Policy Committee pointed out in 2004: “During Bush's four years in office, the average millionaire has received a tax break of $123,000. In contrast, President Bush has broken all previous records for fees paid by veterans - proposing to collect $1.3 billion from veterans themselves in 2005, a 478 percent increase during his time in office.”

Be grateful for what NTodd and friends are doing to stop kids from signing up . If sources for the volunteer army dry up, there will have to be a draft. Politicians know that it is career suicide to activate it and will immediately focus the wrath of 70+% of Americans who are against this war. Because it does not weigh equally on all of us, the war grinds on and grinds up lives and treasury, but bring back the draft and this war will end.

Update: Molly Ivors of Whiskey Fire notes that the VA is being encouraged not to help vets with their paperwork:

One of the things they do--or at least have done historically, is help wounded vets apply to the DoD for the benefits they have coming. But here in upstate New York, that's no longer the case.

Army officials in upstate New York instructed representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs not to help disabled soldiers at Fort Drum Army base with their military disability paperwork last year. That paperwork can be crucial because it helps determine whether soldiers will get annual disability payments and health care after they're discharged.

Now soldiers at Fort Drum say they feel betrayed by the institutions that are supposed to support them. The soldiers want to know why the Army would want to stop them from getting help with their disability paperwork and why the VA— whose mission is to help veterans — would agree to the Army's request.

Blackwater apologist?

I don't usually do this, but to my post about Blackwater Doug posted this response. My remarks are in bold.

Doug said...

You might be interested in the industry perspective on the hearings:

"Best Supported, Best Supplied Military Operation in History" It doesn't say anything about how intelligently the support and supplies are being used, does it? Nor whether the soldiers on the ground are seeing any of this equipment. Or even whether the plan itself was feasible.

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense

Key points from the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)

10 May 2007

While IPOA appreciates the interest that Congress is showing on the issue of contractors providing services in Iraq, we regret that we were not offered the opportunity to testify today to provide balance and an industry perspective on these critical issues. There is much that can be improved in government contracting, and IPOA has been at the fore with ideas and suggestions to improve private sector support for international peace and stability operations. While corrections and improvements are important, we should not lose sight of the fact that the innovative and cost effective use of contractors has ensured that the U.S. military operation in Iraq is the best supported and supplied in military history. Cost effective? The huge drain on the US treasury is cost effective?

Contractors are not new actors in stability operations and areas of conflict. For example, the United States had 80,000 contractors in Vietnam at one point, and that is despite the fact that the Cold War era military did far more of its own logistics and support. Furthermore, because we are going to be working with contractors in the future as well, the question is not whether we should use contractors, but how we can use them better. Ok, how about being accountable? Where are the receipts? Where is the proof that what we paid for is what we are getting? Where are the sensible cost-cutting measures?

A few key points:

1. It is due to the private sector that our operations in Iraq are the best supported and supplied in history. Our military is better able to focus on their core missions and leave the ancillary tasks to professional contractors. Um, no. Contractors get killed in Fallujah where they weren't supposed to be, and the US Military is used for revenge and retaliation. The US Military hates the contractors or else signs up with them for the huge salary.

2. The reason we contract services to the private sector instead of utilizing the military is because it significantly reduces the burden and strain on our soldiers in the field. The private sector offers enormous surge capacity, a reservoir of professional capabilities, and huge cost savings. Like refusing the soldiers the best bullet-proof vests because they can only use the more inferior contractor's equipment? Like e-coli in their drinking water because the contractor isn't cleaning the water supply? Like driving empty trucks about because that covers what is on the contract not what is sensible? These points are what I remember right off the top of my head. The list of complaints is incredibly long.

3. Civilian contractors doing the military support, reconstruction, and security in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqis, the people who should be leading such efforts in Iraq. Americans make up only 17 % of Department of Defense contractors, something critics prefer to overlook. Really? Are these good Iraqis all packed into the Green Zone? Are they trustworthy? Who is vetting these people? Who speaks their language? How dangerous is it for Iraqis to be found out working for the US? How long do these Iraqis stay on contractual work? Is there sabotage? What kind of oversight is there? Why are Iraqis complaining about unemployment?

4. Good oversight and accountability are good for good companies. While oversight has improved since 2003, overwhelmed contract officers have had a detrimental effect on the private sector's ability to fulfill their contracts. In terms of accountability, companies can and are frequently held accountable through standard contractual methods. For individuals, there are a number of laws on the books, including the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which can be used to try contractors in Federal courts. As a trade association, we believe these laws could be more energetically enforced by the Department of Justice. Overwhelmed? Businesses who have signed on to do work for the Iraq war are folding up and quitting. They are walking away from the jobs we counted on them to do. Do they pay the US back? The contractors aren't forced to do the work, the soldiers are.Who then does the work for our military WHO CANNOT leave? Our soldiers are overwhelmed and they are dying.

5. The U.S. military is designed to be the most capable organization in the world, it is not designed or expected to be particularly cost effective. Outsourcing needs to the private sector brings huge economies of scale and efficiencies that save billions of dollars while reducing burdens and enhancing services to the soldiers in the field. I'm sorry, I don't think so. Pigs in a trough is the vision I have. Prove that contracting has been more efficient. What I've read, it is completely the opposite.

6. Critics of civilian contractors need to articulate alternatives. Not just for U.S. operations, but for UN and Africa Union peace operations, which rely on contractors for critical services as well. Articulate alternatives????? How about not going to war with Iraq in the goddammed first place? How about throwing all these contractors and military and money into Afghanistan and FIXING the joint in the FIRST place? And don't tell me we had to go to war with Iraq. It was going to happen the minute Bush was selected as president. I bet with my friends we'd be at war with Iraq within two years. It was obvious.

The way a good president would have dealt with 9/11 would have been to address the world, telling all that we would give every resource, every effort to finding Osama Bin Laden and every al-Qaeda cell on the planet. And then do that. The world community was with us.

A good president would have asked his country to sacrifice, to unite, to help in this effort; not to tell them to go shopping. A good president would have brought all sympathetic nations into the discussions, told his country exactly what must be done and why. A good president would probably not have even bombed Afghanistan, but if it seemed clear, he then would have followed through with his promises to the Afghanis. We would have stayed and made that country stable and possibly even democratic. We would have stayed and negated the economic need for growing poppies which sends the poison of heroin throughout the world. We would have proved ourselves trustworthy. Other nations would have noticed.

Articulate alternatives? Isn't that like saying: Forget how we got into this quagmire, tell us how to get out! Or worse yet: Quagmire? Great! We're going to make a shitload of money, baby!!

War for profit is dangerous. The best articulate alternative is to have no war. If a war is needed, justify it without lies. We would support without question such a war and welcome a draft if the cause was just, our lives were in peril, our country truly in danger. We cannot run a war as a business because where people are making money off of the most horrific of human endeavors, making money off of agony and death, we have lost our humanity.

We are better than this.

Just as advisers, right?

Because the last time we did this, it didn't turn out so well:

The United States will send dozens of military advisers to Pakistan to train soldiers who are fighting extremist groups in the country's restive tribal areas, it emerged today, the first meaningful deployment of American troops in the country.

After weeks of negotiations between the US and Pakistan's new army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a squad of American trainers will arrive later this year to teach soldiers how to handle counter insurgency operations, rather than a conventional land war against India.

The trainers will focus on the Frontier Corps, a force of about 8,500 soldiers, drawn from tribal groups along the Afghan border. The majority of the Pakistani army comes from Punjab and is often regarded as a "foreign force" in the border region, which is dominated by Pashtuns.

Although the original plan sees a deployment that stretches until 2015, the current forecast is that the trainers will be in Pakistan for up to two years. Initially the US military advisers would not be allowed out of their training camps. However, a widely discussed 40-page memo circulating in Washington eventually sees US troops accompanying Pakistani soldiers on missions against the militants.

US troops accompanying Pakistani soldiers on missions? .... What could go wrong?

crossposted at American Street

Things are going swimmingly

In Iraq, says Dick Cheney:

The Vice President today, in a Mississippi radio interview with an obviously friendly host:

INTERVIEWER: . . . You know, I look at this, and every once in a while, we'll see a story, Mr. Vice President, things like an amusement park opens in Iraq or in Baghdad, which is totally counter to what we're hearing over here, as far as the marketplaces being open, the schools, and things such as that. But I saw a story several weeks ago about an amusement center maybe over there, and I'm thinking this is not what you get in today's media.

VICE PRESIDENT: No, that's true. It's -- what gets covered obviously is bad news. That's -- you know, if everything is going swimmingly, then that's not news, so it doesn't get the kind of attention.

Swimmingly just for you, Dick.


Two-year-old Ali Hussein is pulled from the rubble of his
family’s home in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad,
Iraq, April 29, 2008. (Karim Kadim/AP photo)

And:

WASHINGTON -- The number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army involuntarily under the military's controversial "stop-loss" program has risen sharply since the Pentagon extended combat tours last year, officials said Thursday.

[snip]

However, many soldiers subjected to the stop-loss policy consider it a backdoor draft. Critics argue that once soldiers have completed the enlistment period they agreed to, they should be allowed to return home. The involuntary retention program is so unpopular that it helped inspire a recent movie called "Stop-Loss."

The number of soldiers held in the Army under the stop-loss program reached a high in March 2005 of 15,758. That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008.

And: OEF/OIF Post-Combat Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths:

The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.

Because a barrel of crude has shot past $126?

Support our troops

And stop this madness:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One week after the U.S. Army announced record suicide rates among its soldiers last year, the service is worried about a spike in possible suicides in the new year.

The Army said 24 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in January alone -- six times as many as killed themselves in January 2008, according to statistics released Thursday.

The Army said it already has confirmed seven suicides, with 17 additional cases pending that it believes investigators will confirm as suicides for January.

If those prove true, more soldiers will have killed themselves than died in combat last month. According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January.

"This is terrifying," an Army official said. "We do not know what is going on."

Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard, said that the long, cold months of winter could be a major contributor to the January spike.

"There is more hopelessness and helplessness because everything is so dreary and cold," she said.

But Platoni said she sees the multiple deployments, stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers.

Those who are seeking mental-health care often have their treatment disrupted by deployments. Deployed soldiers also have to deal with the stress of separations from families

(Via the Sailor of SteveAudio).

Military is trying to figure out why there is a surge in suicides

In 2008, 140 soldiers on active duty took their own lives, continuing a trend in which the number of suicides has increased more than 60 percent since 2003, surpassing the rate for the general U.S. population.

To deal with the problem, the Army has added to the ranks of mental health and substance abuse counselors. The service also required all units to cease operations for two to four hours to talk about suicide prevention in February and March.

Chiarelli's monthly meetings are the Army's way of sleuthing out patterns and identifying new policies to deal with the trend.

The answer to this puzzling problem is found within the same article. To help, I've bolded it.:

The Army's biggest challenge is that its volunteer force is in uncharted territory. Many soldiers are now in the midst of their third or fourth combat tour, and Army surveys show that mental health deteriorates with each one. Senior Army officials said they are focusing more resources, including extra mental health counselors, where troops are returning from multiple deployments. This year, Fort Campbell, Ky., which is home to the frequently deployed 101st Airborne Division, has had 14 suicides.

"We probably don't know how many mental health care providers we need after eight years of war and three and four deployments," Chiarelli said.

Um... guys. The military is broken. Soldiers are people and they are used up and tired. You can't have an Eternal War on a Noun and expect only a small percentage of the American population to fight it ... forever. You can't extend tours, use stop-loss, badger and harass soldiers into reenlisting, lie to get potential recruits to sign up, ignore signs of mental stress and ptsd, provide crappy veteran's care and not have a backlash.

How about this? Stop the wars. Bring the soldiers home. Focus the attentions of the mental health care providers on our troops at home who will need assistance in fitting back into society. It just might work!

Update: Remembered this post a little more than a year ago about the estimate of attempted suicides.... 12,000.