I don't generally like to buy books that I read (sorry to all the authors I know, if only one or two). I have put together a fairly extensive library card network, and can usually get the books that I can't get in my local libraries through the inter library loan service (the inter library loan service is a GREAT resource - be sure to ask your local librarian - I calculate that I have probably saved thousands of dollars on books that I've gotten to read, but have not had to buy).
But, I had some birthday money and could not resist buying Rule Number Two: Lessons I Learned in a Combat Hospital by Dr. Heidi Squier Kraft.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316067903/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0374180636&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1MT8V4T3AXPKQNS8S15G
This was a pretty compelling book. It chronicles Dr. Kraft's 7 month tour of duty attending to the mental health needs of Sailors and Marines serving in Iraq.
There are some truly heartbreaking stories (along with some heartwarming stories). Not to give too much away, but about halfway through the book, Dr. Kraft talks about a 19 year old Marine she encounters who has gotten three Purple Hearts in two months. He is ashamed because he feels afraid. Dr. Kraft tells him (and this is the understatement of the century) that there is nothing normal about three Purple Hearts in two months.
It gets some poorer reviews on Amazon.com because it doesn't go into detail on how she treated combat trauma. I disagree somewhat with that assessment - if she got too deep into the techniques, etc, it would quickly become too difficult for the general reader.
What is somewhat interesting to me is that she doesn't seem to speculate too much on what is going to happen to her patients when they return to the US from being in the war (and to be fair to her, I'm sure that she spent time then doing that, that she just didn't mention in the book, and spends time doing that now, especially as the book points out that she is the Deputy Coordinator for the US Navy Combat Stress Control Program).
As I read this book, I kept coming back to a few themes which I've spent time writing about over the past several months.
It is all well and good to honor and talk about the service of these brave young men and women.
But I believe that to just talk about them, and to never connect their fate in Iraq to the current NATURE of this war does them a great disservice. And the current nature of the war is the idea that our soldiers are doing a good job for the most part, but the political reconciliation that is necessary by the Iraqi's is simply not happening in any significant way.
Until the Iraqi's decide that they want to reconcile, and stop killing each other in the name of sectarian strife, and the Iraqi government gets serious about doing the routine, mundane things that governments do (clean their streets of filth, ensure there is electrical power, water and security, etc), our brave men and women are simply patrolling the roads, towns and cities of Iraq in the middle of a civil war.
To say that we need to "win the war" or "not cutting and running" are mindless chants which no one ever really talks about what they SPECIFICALLY mean, and when in that context the war can be over. The war has to end doesn't it (that is a rhetorical question - to hear those who are called "pro-war" this is a "long war" which is virtually unending)?
Remember, this was supposed to be a "cake walk", and we were supposed to win and disengage very quickly. To now say that they couldn't have anticipated the war they are getting now gives me no faith about their understanding of history or the middle east. It is also a slick piece of 1984 (George Orwell) revisionist history.
If you don't believe me about the nature of this war, here are two articles by those who have been on the ground fighting this war (and in the first piece, two of these soldiers are now dead):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
This is an article penned by 12 Army Captains:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
For their opinions, they have been called traitors, cowards, defeatists, and the like. For a lot of people however, they just don't want to hear what these thinking, brave soldiers have to say. They would rather bury their heads in the sand and just wait for the Administration to tell them that we've won the war (or that it's time for the next war).
Don't hold your breath until that happens. I see blue skin in your future if you do.
In the mean time, while you are holding your breath, read Dr. Kraft's book.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
No Nukes in Iran? So What.
There has been a lot of interesting stuff over the past few days. Of course, the big news is that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) came out and said that the Iranians ended their nuclear weapons program sometime back in 2003.
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,157461,00.html?wh=news
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/index.html
Now of course there are some hard core hangers on who are not ever going to believe this, and to them it falls in the same category as the idea that the WMD's that Saddam had were actually clandestinely shipped out to Syria in the middle of the night, where they still are, waiting to be used in the subways of New York and Washington.
There are others who probably feel that this makes it practically impossible for the administration to start a war with Iran.
My, my, my, the people in this camp (the "there is now not going to be a war" camp) underestimate the craftiness and spin capability of the Bush Administration. They also underestimate the idea that the Israeli's are still out there, and they are not going to buy into this report either.
There still is a possibility that the US or the Israeli's (or a combination of both) could hit the civilian nuclear infrastructure. I believe this would quickly cascade into the war that I have been talking about all along on this blog.
I still believe that war with Iran is just as likely as it was the day before the NIE came out. It will be much more difficult for them to convince us that it is a good and prudent thing to be sure, but, if they can't convince us they'll just do it anyway.
I have always felt like the decision to go to war in Iraq was a done deal on 9/12/01. Back in May 2007, I posted this very significant exchange from 2006 on this blog:
The rhetoric coming from the Administration is eerily familiar. Iran still MIGHT develop a nuclear weapon (or even the CAPABILITY) in the future, because they did it before. So, to counter that, we MIGHT have to take action to keep them from MAYBE getting the CAPABILITY to produce a nuclear weapon. This MIGHT even include military action - we certainly cannot rule that out.
But, I believe the most significant piece of information comes from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley where he says that "U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report."
To me, this is pretty significant. Because, frankly, US policy toward Iran is advocating and agitating toward regime change. That is the ultimate goal. If the "policy" hasn't changed, that means that regime change is still the goal. The concern for the weapons, like concern for weapons in Iraq are just a trigger mechanism.
Do I believe that Iran has clean hands and are innocent as doves? No. Certainly not. But it at least seems that the dynamics have shifted here in a very permanent way.
I believe, as do many others, that it is time to talk to the Iranians. The ironic thing is that we claimed that we NEVER trusted the Soviets. During the cold war we never really stopped talking to them. This was not seen as weakness or unmanliness - it was seen as prudent, to keep horrible misunderstandings between the two nations from starting World War III.
Iran is a regional player like it or not.
I think it is prudent again now to talk to the Iranians. I don't expect this Administration to initiate those talks. My hope is that if we make it through the next year or so without plastering 1500 target points in Iran with cluster bombs that the next administration has the wisdom to at least open the door.
We don't have to give away the farm, but we should at least be willing to talk.
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,157461,00.html?wh=news
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/index.html
Now of course there are some hard core hangers on who are not ever going to believe this, and to them it falls in the same category as the idea that the WMD's that Saddam had were actually clandestinely shipped out to Syria in the middle of the night, where they still are, waiting to be used in the subways of New York and Washington.
There are others who probably feel that this makes it practically impossible for the administration to start a war with Iran.
My, my, my, the people in this camp (the "there is now not going to be a war" camp) underestimate the craftiness and spin capability of the Bush Administration. They also underestimate the idea that the Israeli's are still out there, and they are not going to buy into this report either.
There still is a possibility that the US or the Israeli's (or a combination of both) could hit the civilian nuclear infrastructure. I believe this would quickly cascade into the war that I have been talking about all along on this blog.
I still believe that war with Iran is just as likely as it was the day before the NIE came out. It will be much more difficult for them to convince us that it is a good and prudent thing to be sure, but, if they can't convince us they'll just do it anyway.
I have always felt like the decision to go to war in Iraq was a done deal on 9/12/01. Back in May 2007, I posted this very significant exchange from 2006 on this blog:
"Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
“He’d done it before,” Cheney said. “He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ’91.
”The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said."
The rhetoric coming from the Administration is eerily familiar. Iran still MIGHT develop a nuclear weapon (or even the CAPABILITY) in the future, because they did it before. So, to counter that, we MIGHT have to take action to keep them from MAYBE getting the CAPABILITY to produce a nuclear weapon. This MIGHT even include military action - we certainly cannot rule that out.
But, I believe the most significant piece of information comes from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley where he says that "U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report."
To me, this is pretty significant. Because, frankly, US policy toward Iran is advocating and agitating toward regime change. That is the ultimate goal. If the "policy" hasn't changed, that means that regime change is still the goal. The concern for the weapons, like concern for weapons in Iraq are just a trigger mechanism.
Do I believe that Iran has clean hands and are innocent as doves? No. Certainly not. But it at least seems that the dynamics have shifted here in a very permanent way.
I believe, as do many others, that it is time to talk to the Iranians. The ironic thing is that we claimed that we NEVER trusted the Soviets. During the cold war we never really stopped talking to them. This was not seen as weakness or unmanliness - it was seen as prudent, to keep horrible misunderstandings between the two nations from starting World War III.
Iran is a regional player like it or not.
I think it is prudent again now to talk to the Iranians. I don't expect this Administration to initiate those talks. My hope is that if we make it through the next year or so without plastering 1500 target points in Iran with cluster bombs that the next administration has the wisdom to at least open the door.
We don't have to give away the farm, but we should at least be willing to talk.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
My Birthday Wish
So, today is my Birthday.
Also tomorrow is the first day of advent (the period to contemplate and prepare for the celebration of the birth of Christ).
Anyway, we are Saturday Mass people, so I got to hear the readings tonight.
One of the readings from Isaiah (from Isaiah 2) is one of my favorites, and THIS is what I want for my birthday:
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again".
I know, I know. What the heck kind of liberal, loony, peacenik, Utopian thinking is THAT. There's a WAR on, don't you know that? Of course, we (the US) would be willing to do that (beat our plowshares into swords, etc) IF all those other bad folks in the world would stop what they were doing. We are innocent don't you realize that? We were just minding our own business. We didn't choose these wars, these wars chose us.
Don't you understand that 9/11 "changed everything"?
Right.
Yes, there are actually TWO wars going on. One in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan (there are actually several more wars going on including action in Pakistan, Somalia, and other places - the two discussed here are the ones where are soldiers are pretty active). Neither of them are going to be over any time in the future.
I have asked this question over and over and over again. When do we know if we "won" in Iraq? There doesn't seem to be any answers to that question, except to continue to chant the mantra that we can't cut and run and we have to let the troops win.
And, when you ask your pro-war friends what winning means, you are told that you should be supporting the troops and your President, and to ask questions like that in a time of war borders on (and in fact may actually be) treason. Never mind that more and more, even the soldiers involved in the wars are publicly asking those questions.
When is it going to be over? Apparently, according to President Bush who recently signed some security "agreements" with the Iraqi government, never.
It is interesting that to them (our pro-war friends) "supporting the troops" means leaving them to their fates in Iraq and Afghanistan, and never questioning whether leaving them there in that environment is even good foreign policy. We certainly know that it is NOT good for THEIR health either from a physical standpoint or from an emotional and spiritual standpoint.
We were told that we "won" in Afghanistan, but now were finding out that it is more dangerous for our soldiers in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
The breaking point is coming. Look at the lessons of what happened to the military after Vietnam, then, in my opinion, multiply that by ten or twenty. That is what we are going to be living with for the next several years.
Do we have one more rebuild of our forces in us after the massive collapse that is going to occur? Or, are we going to be so depleted in treasure and talent after these wars (this breakdown doesn't even include the scheming by the neocons to start additional wars in Iran and now Pakistan to "secure the nukes" from Islamofacists) that we'll have no choice but to "study war no more."
When do we win? What does winning even mean? Instead of the plowshares thing, the answers to those questions is REALLY what I want for my birthday.
Also tomorrow is the first day of advent (the period to contemplate and prepare for the celebration of the birth of Christ).
Anyway, we are Saturday Mass people, so I got to hear the readings tonight.
One of the readings from Isaiah (from Isaiah 2) is one of my favorites, and THIS is what I want for my birthday:
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again".
I know, I know. What the heck kind of liberal, loony, peacenik, Utopian thinking is THAT. There's a WAR on, don't you know that? Of course, we (the US) would be willing to do that (beat our plowshares into swords, etc) IF all those other bad folks in the world would stop what they were doing. We are innocent don't you realize that? We were just minding our own business. We didn't choose these wars, these wars chose us.
Don't you understand that 9/11 "changed everything"?
Right.
Yes, there are actually TWO wars going on. One in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan (there are actually several more wars going on including action in Pakistan, Somalia, and other places - the two discussed here are the ones where are soldiers are pretty active). Neither of them are going to be over any time in the future.
I have asked this question over and over and over again. When do we know if we "won" in Iraq? There doesn't seem to be any answers to that question, except to continue to chant the mantra that we can't cut and run and we have to let the troops win.
And, when you ask your pro-war friends what winning means, you are told that you should be supporting the troops and your President, and to ask questions like that in a time of war borders on (and in fact may actually be) treason. Never mind that more and more, even the soldiers involved in the wars are publicly asking those questions.
When is it going to be over? Apparently, according to President Bush who recently signed some security "agreements" with the Iraqi government, never.
It is interesting that to them (our pro-war friends) "supporting the troops" means leaving them to their fates in Iraq and Afghanistan, and never questioning whether leaving them there in that environment is even good foreign policy. We certainly know that it is NOT good for THEIR health either from a physical standpoint or from an emotional and spiritual standpoint.
We were told that we "won" in Afghanistan, but now were finding out that it is more dangerous for our soldiers in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
The breaking point is coming. Look at the lessons of what happened to the military after Vietnam, then, in my opinion, multiply that by ten or twenty. That is what we are going to be living with for the next several years.
Do we have one more rebuild of our forces in us after the massive collapse that is going to occur? Or, are we going to be so depleted in treasure and talent after these wars (this breakdown doesn't even include the scheming by the neocons to start additional wars in Iran and now Pakistan to "secure the nukes" from Islamofacists) that we'll have no choice but to "study war no more."
When do we win? What does winning even mean? Instead of the plowshares thing, the answers to those questions is REALLY what I want for my birthday.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Forgotten Heroes
I recently profiled a piece by Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
His four points were:
1. Asking a troop just back from Iraq to fill out another form is not the same as screening them for PTSD.
2. Mental health issues are family issues.
3. National Guardsmen and Reservists are facing a special set of issues, and their concerns need to get heard.
4. Troops need more time to access to care.
This reminded me of a Newsweek piece I read several weeks back called Forgotten Heroes (http://www.newsweek.com/id/36601).
The article opens with the tale of Jonathan Schulze, a Marine Corps Iraq War Veteran (the article is fairly long and goes on to profile several more veterans and their struggles with "the system").
Schulze goes several months before he decides to get help from the VA. He is told that he can try group therapy. To me, this seems to be a variation on Point 1 from Paul's article - instead of filling out a form, he would be dumped into a group. So. now that the guy is in group therapy, he has been "evaluated". Never mind that he'll probably quit group therapy shortly after.
This may be a slightly better solution than nothing at all, but it doesn't seem to me too much better. Let's see. This guy has worked literally MONTHS to isolate himself. Now, you want to put him in a group where he knows no one (and trusts no one), and expect him to flourish? Maybe for some it might work. Maybe later in this guys recovery it might work.
The pain finally gets to be too much for him, and he checks himself in. He is asked if he feels suicidal. When he tells them yes, the intake person (who is probably a good person, but is working in a bad system, and is probably overworked and overwhelmed) keeps typing, then calls someone. The call reveals that no one is available to see him.
Again, as I mentioned in the previous blog, what is the point of asking if the person is suicidal if nothing is going to be done immediately?
The next day he finds out he is NUMBER 26 on a list. Several more weeks go by with Schulze calling and getting repeatedly pushed off. Finally, it seems, he loses hope, he gets drunk and hangs himself with an electrical cord.
At the end, Schulze is another tragic "statistic". Not a combat death. But to his family and friends, the pain is just as real as if he was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't want to be too flippant here, but let's say that your car has a problem. Would you ever tolerate being told by your garage that you were number 26 on a list, then have to call back several times over the next few weeks to try to get it repaired? I don't think anyone would tolerate those circumstances and would find a different place to get their car worked on. So why, when we are dealing with matters of life and death, are we operating this way?
Unfortunately (except for groups that are trying to help like Give an Hour mentioned several times here in this blog: http://www.giveanhour.org/) unlike the case of getting your car fixed, THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO.
Is Jonathan Schulze's case an anomaly or is it the rule. If it's the rule, are we making progress to make it not the rule?
I remember that Bob Dole and Donna Shalala were put on a blue ribbon commission to try to look at some of these problems (and Bill Lind has said that blue ribbon commissions were just kabuki to convince the rubes back home that something was actually happening, when in reality nothing was happening). I have seen sparse coverage on this subject.
Is that because they (the people who get to decide what gets put on the air) don't think we'll be interested, or is it that not much has been done?
We certainly have short memories don't we?
His four points were:
1. Asking a troop just back from Iraq to fill out another form is not the same as screening them for PTSD.
2. Mental health issues are family issues.
3. National Guardsmen and Reservists are facing a special set of issues, and their concerns need to get heard.
4. Troops need more time to access to care.
This reminded me of a Newsweek piece I read several weeks back called Forgotten Heroes (http://www.newsweek.com/id/36601).
The article opens with the tale of Jonathan Schulze, a Marine Corps Iraq War Veteran (the article is fairly long and goes on to profile several more veterans and their struggles with "the system").
Schulze goes several months before he decides to get help from the VA. He is told that he can try group therapy. To me, this seems to be a variation on Point 1 from Paul's article - instead of filling out a form, he would be dumped into a group. So. now that the guy is in group therapy, he has been "evaluated". Never mind that he'll probably quit group therapy shortly after.
This may be a slightly better solution than nothing at all, but it doesn't seem to me too much better. Let's see. This guy has worked literally MONTHS to isolate himself. Now, you want to put him in a group where he knows no one (and trusts no one), and expect him to flourish? Maybe for some it might work. Maybe later in this guys recovery it might work.
The pain finally gets to be too much for him, and he checks himself in. He is asked if he feels suicidal. When he tells them yes, the intake person (who is probably a good person, but is working in a bad system, and is probably overworked and overwhelmed) keeps typing, then calls someone. The call reveals that no one is available to see him.
Again, as I mentioned in the previous blog, what is the point of asking if the person is suicidal if nothing is going to be done immediately?
The next day he finds out he is NUMBER 26 on a list. Several more weeks go by with Schulze calling and getting repeatedly pushed off. Finally, it seems, he loses hope, he gets drunk and hangs himself with an electrical cord.
At the end, Schulze is another tragic "statistic". Not a combat death. But to his family and friends, the pain is just as real as if he was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't want to be too flippant here, but let's say that your car has a problem. Would you ever tolerate being told by your garage that you were number 26 on a list, then have to call back several times over the next few weeks to try to get it repaired? I don't think anyone would tolerate those circumstances and would find a different place to get their car worked on. So why, when we are dealing with matters of life and death, are we operating this way?
Unfortunately (except for groups that are trying to help like Give an Hour mentioned several times here in this blog: http://www.giveanhour.org/) unlike the case of getting your car fixed, THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO.
Is Jonathan Schulze's case an anomaly or is it the rule. If it's the rule, are we making progress to make it not the rule?
I remember that Bob Dole and Donna Shalala were put on a blue ribbon commission to try to look at some of these problems (and Bill Lind has said that blue ribbon commissions were just kabuki to convince the rubes back home that something was actually happening, when in reality nothing was happening). I have seen sparse coverage on this subject.
Is that because they (the people who get to decide what gets put on the air) don't think we'll be interested, or is it that not much has been done?
We certainly have short memories don't we?
Friday, November 23, 2007
One Issue
As I've written this blog over the last several months (knowing that only a few of my friends read it anyway), I have often thought that at certain times I have only been writing about one issue.
I have written a lot on the Iraq war and the damage I believe it has done to this country.
I have written a lot on the possibility, that crazy as it seems, that we may be plunged into ANOTHER war in the middle east with Iran.
I have even written on Atheism and belief in God.
3. National Guardsmen and Reservists are facing a special set of issues, and their concerns need to get heard.
4. Troops need more time to access to care.
With regard to point one, several weeks ago, I read about a soldier who killed himself (he got drunk and hung himself with an electrical cord). He went to the hospital, and was asked if he was suicidal. When he said yes, they said, essentially they couldn't see him anyway. What is the point of asking if he is suicidal if you cannot do anything about it?
Paul's point is great - filling out a form is not solving a problem. We should all know this from our dealings with any number of organizations. How many of us like filling out forms for routine, mundane things such as car repair or other services? We know they are blowing us off by making us do it, and that's why we get angry. Imagine now the feelings with critical issues of life and death.
With regard to point two, this should be obvious as hell, but it's really not. The US does not have a strong sense of "community" anymore. We tend to isolate ourselves from each other.
I have posted this organization called Give an Hour (http://www.giveanhour.org) here before, but it needs to be repeated again, and again, and again and again.
I believe that this organization (Give an Hour), along with Paul's organization and others are trying to build the networks to solve these problems. I think the VA and other Military Treatment Networks are going to need all the help they can get.
If I'm becoming a one issue guy, it's an issue that's well worth it.
I have written a lot on the Iraq war and the damage I believe it has done to this country.
I have written a lot on the possibility, that crazy as it seems, that we may be plunged into ANOTHER war in the middle east with Iran.
I have written a lot on what I believe to be issues such as the fact that our economy seems to be strong on the surface, but beneath is a shaky house of cards, the idea that our infrastructure is falling apart in a lot of places, and the question that a lot of others are asking: Are we like that late Roman Empire?
I have even written on Atheism and belief in God.
Lately though, I have been sort of a one-topic guy. And that is the topic of taking care of our veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly soon Iran).
Today, I read a great piece by Paul Rieckhoff , who is the Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (he is also the author of Chasing Ghosts: Failures and Facades in Iraq: A Soldier's Perspective, which is a GREAT book).http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,156809_1,00.html
Paul's piece points up four great points:
1. Asking a troop just back from Iraq to fill out another form is not the same as screening them for PTSD.
2. Mental health issues are family issues.
3. National Guardsmen and Reservists are facing a special set of issues, and their concerns need to get heard.
4. Troops need more time to access to care.
With regard to point one, several weeks ago, I read about a soldier who killed himself (he got drunk and hung himself with an electrical cord). He went to the hospital, and was asked if he was suicidal. When he said yes, they said, essentially they couldn't see him anyway. What is the point of asking if he is suicidal if you cannot do anything about it?
Paul's point is great - filling out a form is not solving a problem. We should all know this from our dealings with any number of organizations. How many of us like filling out forms for routine, mundane things such as car repair or other services? We know they are blowing us off by making us do it, and that's why we get angry. Imagine now the feelings with critical issues of life and death.
With regard to point two, this should be obvious as hell, but it's really not. The US does not have a strong sense of "community" anymore. We tend to isolate ourselves from each other.
I have posted this organization called Give an Hour (http://www.giveanhour.org) here before, but it needs to be repeated again, and again, and again and again.
I believe that this organization (Give an Hour), along with Paul's organization and others are trying to build the networks to solve these problems. I think the VA and other Military Treatment Networks are going to need all the help they can get.
If I'm becoming a one issue guy, it's an issue that's well worth it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Are you ready to shell out $40K?
I first saw this report on the "hidden costs" of the Iraq war about a week ago (it was put out by Congressional Democrats). I thought to myself that I'd wait and see how it played out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21766479/
A few days later, quite predictably, the Republicans demanded that the report be retracted (send it over to Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth (this is a reference to George Orwell's 1984)), and that none of the numbers could be substantiated or connected to the Iraq war.
The report focuses on a few things, most notably that the "hidden costs" of the war come through things like higher prices for oil (from mid $30 range at the start of the war, to lapping the shores of Lake $100 now), the cost of caring for disabled veterans (I have written about this subject some in this blog), and massive interest on the debt paid - essentially, the Bush Administration has turned our country into a sub-prime lender to such wonderful "bankers" as China.
The Republicans certainly cannot say that these things are lies (unlike the "intelligence" that got us into the war). I think what got them most upset is that this is a great example of synthesis. Putting it all together into one article and laying it out there. No longer do the American people have to grasp at strands from the news and try to form them into a coherent whole to see the mess we are really in. THEN, attaching a $20 to possibly $40K price tag on EACH AMERICAN FAMILY.
This should really open our eyes, and make us angry as hell. But, the fact that Marie Osmond's son is in rehab seems to be more important to us. I haven't really seen anything more on this story.
Meanwhile, the President tells us that we can't "afford" health care for our poorest and most vulnerable children.
A lot of these things about the war have been hidden quite nicely from the American people. We are NOT a country at war as a lot of pundits (especially conservative pundits) like to say. The people patrolling Iraq and their families are certainly involved in an ugly, brutal, destructive war, but at home we are as detached as a country can be from the war. This was made easier also by hiring mercenaries (modern day Hessians) to fill in for those who might have had to become soldiers and go to the war zone.
All of these things are going to fundamentally change the way we live. We will look back and ask ourselves repeatedly in future years, "was it worth it"? If you fundamentally change the soul and psyche of your nation, and not in a good way, was it worth it?
What is our return on investment for the invasion of Iraq? Security? Even General Petraeus could not say that our country was safer when pressed specifically by Senator Warner.
I think the hidden cost that is going to be most painful and costly is treating the Veterans who are coming back, profoundly broken in body, spirit and soul. There is right now no end in sight to this carnage assembly line either - at least not for the next few years - and to hear the Democrats talk, not even then.
We cannot let them fade into obscurity, or homelessness, or alcohol and drug addiction, or madness.
It will in fact be very costly IF we do the honorable thing and do it right. We cannot do it on the cheap like we tried to prosecute this war.
They (the Democrats) can congratulate themselves for this report, but the fact of the matter is, they are every bit as much to blame for our foreign policy debacle and our budgetary woes.
If we don't do the best that we can, and treat the Veterans and their families right, we can forever hang our heads in shame.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21766479/
A few days later, quite predictably, the Republicans demanded that the report be retracted (send it over to Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth (this is a reference to George Orwell's 1984)), and that none of the numbers could be substantiated or connected to the Iraq war.
The report focuses on a few things, most notably that the "hidden costs" of the war come through things like higher prices for oil (from mid $30 range at the start of the war, to lapping the shores of Lake $100 now), the cost of caring for disabled veterans (I have written about this subject some in this blog), and massive interest on the debt paid - essentially, the Bush Administration has turned our country into a sub-prime lender to such wonderful "bankers" as China.
The Republicans certainly cannot say that these things are lies (unlike the "intelligence" that got us into the war). I think what got them most upset is that this is a great example of synthesis. Putting it all together into one article and laying it out there. No longer do the American people have to grasp at strands from the news and try to form them into a coherent whole to see the mess we are really in. THEN, attaching a $20 to possibly $40K price tag on EACH AMERICAN FAMILY.
This should really open our eyes, and make us angry as hell. But, the fact that Marie Osmond's son is in rehab seems to be more important to us. I haven't really seen anything more on this story.
Meanwhile, the President tells us that we can't "afford" health care for our poorest and most vulnerable children.
A lot of these things about the war have been hidden quite nicely from the American people. We are NOT a country at war as a lot of pundits (especially conservative pundits) like to say. The people patrolling Iraq and their families are certainly involved in an ugly, brutal, destructive war, but at home we are as detached as a country can be from the war. This was made easier also by hiring mercenaries (modern day Hessians) to fill in for those who might have had to become soldiers and go to the war zone.
All of these things are going to fundamentally change the way we live. We will look back and ask ourselves repeatedly in future years, "was it worth it"? If you fundamentally change the soul and psyche of your nation, and not in a good way, was it worth it?
What is our return on investment for the invasion of Iraq? Security? Even General Petraeus could not say that our country was safer when pressed specifically by Senator Warner.
I think the hidden cost that is going to be most painful and costly is treating the Veterans who are coming back, profoundly broken in body, spirit and soul. There is right now no end in sight to this carnage assembly line either - at least not for the next few years - and to hear the Democrats talk, not even then.
We cannot let them fade into obscurity, or homelessness, or alcohol and drug addiction, or madness.
It will in fact be very costly IF we do the honorable thing and do it right. We cannot do it on the cheap like we tried to prosecute this war.
They (the Democrats) can congratulate themselves for this report, but the fact of the matter is, they are every bit as much to blame for our foreign policy debacle and our budgetary woes.
If we don't do the best that we can, and treat the Veterans and their families right, we can forever hang our heads in shame.
Friday, November 9, 2007
A Tsunami is a comin'
A few days ago, I read a disheartening article about homeless vets.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/
The article was saying that the homeless even included veterans of our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The article said:
"Some advocates say such an early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable
“We’re going to be having a tsunami of them eventually because the mental health toll from this war is enormous,” said Daniel Tooth, director of veterans affairs for Lancaster County, Pa."
I asked a few friends (some who work with Veterans) to give their opinions as to why this has happened so fast. In addition to the reasons above (intense, repeated deployments), the idea was given that Reservists coming back have been having trouble getting their jobs back (or have lost their businesses from repeated deployments), and haven't been getting much help from the government they've spent the last several years serving in a dangerous war zone.
You don't have a job, you lose your home, your wife and family leave you, this sequence of events could take down even the strongest of people.
Several days ago, I wrote a blog called Change or Die in which I reviewed a book with the same title. I said that treating these vets was going to be a huge issue, and that there was someone out there who would be the Dr. Dean Ornish or Dr. Mimi Silbert of this crisis (they were two unconventional change agents profiled in the book). This person (or persons) will probably be someone who is doing it differently, against the conventional wisdom.
A few days later, I read an encouraging profile in the Washington Post about an organization called Give an Hour. According to their website (http://www.giveanhour.org/cms/index.php), they are:
"currently establishing a national network of mental health professionals and reaching out to our first target population, the U.S. troops and families affected by the current military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq."
This is only a band aid and stopgap at best. I'm sure those in the military treatment communities probably don't like this one bit. But, it proves that there are people out there who are working on this problem, and are looking for creative solutions rather than just throwing the hands up and saying, well, the VA is full, or there is no military treatment facility in my area, so there is no hope.
According to Change or Die, the first step to lasting change is:
1. Relate. You form a new, emotional relationship with a person or community that inspires and sustains hope (the other two are: 2. Repeat. The new relationship helps you learn, practice, and master the new habits and skills that you'll need. 3. Reframe. The new relationship helps you learn new ways of thinking about your situation and your life).
Hope, and a shot to live a normal life. Isn't that something that someone who has served our country valiantly deserves?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/
The article was saying that the homeless even included veterans of our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The article said:
"Some advocates say such an early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable
“We’re going to be having a tsunami of them eventually because the mental health toll from this war is enormous,” said Daniel Tooth, director of veterans affairs for Lancaster County, Pa."
I asked a few friends (some who work with Veterans) to give their opinions as to why this has happened so fast. In addition to the reasons above (intense, repeated deployments), the idea was given that Reservists coming back have been having trouble getting their jobs back (or have lost their businesses from repeated deployments), and haven't been getting much help from the government they've spent the last several years serving in a dangerous war zone.
You don't have a job, you lose your home, your wife and family leave you, this sequence of events could take down even the strongest of people.
Several days ago, I wrote a blog called Change or Die in which I reviewed a book with the same title. I said that treating these vets was going to be a huge issue, and that there was someone out there who would be the Dr. Dean Ornish or Dr. Mimi Silbert of this crisis (they were two unconventional change agents profiled in the book). This person (or persons) will probably be someone who is doing it differently, against the conventional wisdom.
A few days later, I read an encouraging profile in the Washington Post about an organization called Give an Hour. According to their website (http://www.giveanhour.org/cms/index.php), they are:
"currently establishing a national network of mental health professionals and reaching out to our first target population, the U.S. troops and families affected by the current military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq."
This is only a band aid and stopgap at best. I'm sure those in the military treatment communities probably don't like this one bit. But, it proves that there are people out there who are working on this problem, and are looking for creative solutions rather than just throwing the hands up and saying, well, the VA is full, or there is no military treatment facility in my area, so there is no hope.
According to Change or Die, the first step to lasting change is:
1. Relate. You form a new, emotional relationship with a person or community that inspires and sustains hope (the other two are: 2. Repeat. The new relationship helps you learn, practice, and master the new habits and skills that you'll need. 3. Reframe. The new relationship helps you learn new ways of thinking about your situation and your life).
Hope, and a shot to live a normal life. Isn't that something that someone who has served our country valiantly deserves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)