......since I've Rock and Rolled. One of my favorite Led Zeppelin songs.
I've been thinking a lot about the economy, and there doesn't seem to be ANY good news.
Actually, I've been thinking about the economy for quite some time as I've written this blog over the past almost year.
On April 29, 2007, I wrote (in the blog A Superpower?):
"The economy. I think that the economy is a house of cards that could be blown over at any time. The war has been financed not with tax dollars, but with BORROWED money from such countries as China. That we are going to have to pay this back is going to affect our economy for a long time."
On August 14, 2007, I wrote (in the blog Are We Rome?):
"Our economy, while APPEARING strong is a house of cards built on credit and the promise of cheap, plentiful energy, either of which could evaporate at any moment (and as far as credit goes has been heading that way)."
I've also written quite extensively about some of the "hidden costs" of the war, specifically what it's going to cost to properly care for a generation of profoundly broken veterans.
Now it's March 7, 2008 and oil is at around $106 a barrel (so much for cheap energy, although for now, it MIGHT be plentiful - but that could change in a very short period of time), and most Americans are familiar with the credit crunch that is sending not ripples, but shock waves through the economy.
There have been quite a few interesting articles of on the work of the Economist Joseph Stiglitz (many of them predicting the final costs of the wars at somewhere around $5 TRILLION)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html
Excerpted from this article is the following:
"The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.
"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.
That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said."
I'm sure many economists, and certain apologists for the Bush Administration will find that very controversial.
It makes a lot of sense to me though. In my earlier blogs on the economy mentioned above, I noted the "whats" - this gives a plausible explanation for the "whys"
One of the things I've been talking about over the past several days to my friends is the idea of looking at the economy as a whole. The people in Washington count on the idea that Americans are going to look at the economy in somewhat of a fragmented way - almost as if there are "economy boxes" - there's the energy economy box, the health care box, the housing box, the manufacturing box, the war box. It is ALL ONE BOX.
What happens to one sector of the economy affects ALL sectors of the economy.
The other thing is that they are trying to distract Americans by giving these "rebate checks" to "stimulate" the economy. This is kind of like handing a child having a tantrum in a department store a shiny squeaky toy. This is also geared to American's first instinct of the desire for consumption.
One thing you should remember when you are spending that rebate check on the camcorders, televisions, DVD players and other things is that this is not "free money" for you to spend, if you are a taxpayer, this is YOUR MONEY that the government has already taken from you.
The Government is slow to admit we are in a recession or even in a slowdown (similar to when they were slow to admit that we were in a guerrilla war in Iraq with a growing insurgency - we see where that got us). My guess is that this is to try to keep people from panicking.
One of the scenarios I have looked at in past blogs is a cascading collapse and failure of the economy and infrastructure causing uncertainty and chaos the likes of what we saw during Hurricane Katrina on a national level. I hope that it does not come to that.
I think it will get worse, and maybe a LOT worse before it gets better.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Veterans and Work
This is a piece which focuses on the difficulty that some veterans are finding in getting jobs upon returning from duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23056355/
The piece alludes to the idea that companies don't want to hire because of the "Wacko Vet myth", of course perpetuated by that evil liberal media.
There may be a some truth in that, or there may not, but it's always easy and safe to blame the liberal media, and the Liberal America hating, soldier hating people that oppose the war, instead of thinking about how to solve the problems.
The article also touches on what I believe are more correct theories of the difficulties:
"The report blamed the poor prospects partly on inadequate job networks and lack of mentors after extended periods in war."
I think this is a critical idea and thought. If you join the Army at age 18 or 19, and spend a few years there, usually you come out not knowing anyone, especially anyone who might be able to aid you in finding a job. Everyone knows that social networks are critical to not only finding jobs, but in learning how to properly look for a job.
I currently work in an industry which relies on semi-skilled and low skilled labor. It is getting tougher to find a job in this industry as the economy gets tighter and tighter. I read a lot of reports - this is happening in ALL sectors - manufacturing, construction, service. These entry level jobs are jobs which these veterans might be looking for to get their start upon returning from war.
Now, it is tough enough to find a job in an economy such as the present when all of your systems (health, psychological and spiritual) are in stasis.
But imagine that you are not sleeping at night because of horrific nightmares. Imagine that you are addicted to drugs and or alcohol to try to slow or stop those nightmares. Imagine that your family life is crashing down around you and people are leaving you (spouses and kids) because you haven't been able to adjust. Imagine that you are afflicted with PTSD, and it is a chore for you to even leave the house, much less get dressed up for an interview, and having to maintain and make it through the interview.
Imagine having all of those issues and having to present yourself as a hireable candidate.
Now, granted, some of these things happen to those who have not been to war as well, and those people need the help too. But that is not what I'm talking about here.
The article says that the government is going to have to fix it. I think the government can do some things, but I think it will take everyone to pull this one off - industry, education, government, churches and veterans organizations.
I don't believe these are unsolvable problems. One good idea has been talked about by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.iava.org), and that is the idea of a New GI Bill:
http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,66/option,content/task,view/id,2492/
As this article points out, the GI Bill simply: “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war.
It is not going to be easy, nor is it going to be cheap. We tried to do the war "on the cheap" and we see where that got us. We simply cannot do this "on the cheap"
Now, a lot will say that we "can't afford this" - it costs too much. But can we afford the results of what will happen if we DON'T do it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23056355/
The piece alludes to the idea that companies don't want to hire because of the "Wacko Vet myth", of course perpetuated by that evil liberal media.
There may be a some truth in that, or there may not, but it's always easy and safe to blame the liberal media, and the Liberal America hating, soldier hating people that oppose the war, instead of thinking about how to solve the problems.
The article also touches on what I believe are more correct theories of the difficulties:
"The report blamed the poor prospects partly on inadequate job networks and lack of mentors after extended periods in war."
I think this is a critical idea and thought. If you join the Army at age 18 or 19, and spend a few years there, usually you come out not knowing anyone, especially anyone who might be able to aid you in finding a job. Everyone knows that social networks are critical to not only finding jobs, but in learning how to properly look for a job.
I currently work in an industry which relies on semi-skilled and low skilled labor. It is getting tougher to find a job in this industry as the economy gets tighter and tighter. I read a lot of reports - this is happening in ALL sectors - manufacturing, construction, service. These entry level jobs are jobs which these veterans might be looking for to get their start upon returning from war.
Now, it is tough enough to find a job in an economy such as the present when all of your systems (health, psychological and spiritual) are in stasis.
But imagine that you are not sleeping at night because of horrific nightmares. Imagine that you are addicted to drugs and or alcohol to try to slow or stop those nightmares. Imagine that your family life is crashing down around you and people are leaving you (spouses and kids) because you haven't been able to adjust. Imagine that you are afflicted with PTSD, and it is a chore for you to even leave the house, much less get dressed up for an interview, and having to maintain and make it through the interview.
Imagine having all of those issues and having to present yourself as a hireable candidate.
Now, granted, some of these things happen to those who have not been to war as well, and those people need the help too. But that is not what I'm talking about here.
The article says that the government is going to have to fix it. I think the government can do some things, but I think it will take everyone to pull this one off - industry, education, government, churches and veterans organizations.
I don't believe these are unsolvable problems. One good idea has been talked about by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.iava.org), and that is the idea of a New GI Bill:
http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,66/option,content/task,view/id,2492/
As this article points out, the GI Bill simply: “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war.
It is not going to be easy, nor is it going to be cheap. We tried to do the war "on the cheap" and we see where that got us. We simply cannot do this "on the cheap"
Now, a lot will say that we "can't afford this" - it costs too much. But can we afford the results of what will happen if we DON'T do it?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Give me your tired.......
This is a piece where Admiral Mullen says that US forces are "worn thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unlikely to come home in large numbers anytime soon."
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=35982
This is, quite frankly, the understatement of the century. It also should be disturbing and discouraging for every American. The Admiral goes on to say "The well is deep, but it is not infinite."
What does that even MEAN? Did anyone say, "Admiral, this is claptrap and nonsense that you are speaking. What does this really mean?" Or, "Admiral, is the "well" really that "deep"?" The Admiral can say nonsensical things like this because he knows that not that many people are paying attention, or thinking critically about the war.
What does it mean? It means that the thin slice of the population and their families and friends are going to continue to bear the brunt of this war for the forseeable future.
It means that we are going to continue to repeatedly send good men and women away. They'll still come back good men and women, but they'll keep coming back broken in mind, body and soul. And when they come back, we have to make the hard choices. Are we REALLY going to do what's necessary to take care of them, or are we going to try to do it the same way we did the war - "on the cheap".
It means that what we SAY is that we have to do the things to really help out the troops. What we MEAN is that, there is nothing we can do about this right now, we are going to keep troops fighting in Iraq, you signed up and volunteered for it (including all that small print about "stop loss"), so deal with it.
It means that people keep looking at the troops as an inexhaustable "resource", while mouthing the words that we have to "take care of them". When in reality, they are seen by some as little more than pieces on a grand chess board.
To dispute the Admiral's assertion that the "well is deep", you have to look at the whole picture. NOT just those on the ground right now, but those who've already been and are profoundly broken, and those who will go and be profoundly broken.
You have to focus on the PTSD. The physical and mental illness. The Suicides. The Homelessness. The addictions to drugs and alcohol. The inability to adjust to life back home.
You have to focus on the damage already done to the National Guard and Reserve and their ability to protect those of us at home.
Then, you start to focus on the overall financial picture. The well there is not at all "deep". They are asking for and getting astounding amounts of money (all of it borrowed) to fund these wars almost indefinitely, while at home they slash and burn social and educational programs. These programs are cut at home because we "can't afford them". Then, in the midst of that, they want to give "rebates" to 100 million Americans to stimulate economic growth.
I'm no Harvard educated economist, only a guy with an Associates Degree in Liberal Arts, but these numbers simply do not add up or jive.
But, I think the attitude of a lot of Americans who simply don't care to look at the big picture is best summed up by a comment on a Newsweek article on torture (http://www.newsweek.com/id/108719) by some person from Illinois. This person says:
"Comment: CIA and U.S. military, you guys do what you have to do, to keep me safe and happy in Illinois."
No matter how much we spend (to the detriment of the poor and disadvantaged here). No matter how many soldiers have to die, or be mangled. No matter how many "foreigners, ragheads and terrorists" have to die. Just keep me safe and happy in Illinois. The truth is, that you don't yet know it, but you are not at all safe, and when you get the final bill, that you and your next generations are going to be paying in a lot of different ways, you are not going to be at all happy.
I don't want to sound hokey or corny, or engage in hyperbole, and I know it will sound like it, but I believe who we are as a people and a nation is now at stake. Our national collective "soul" if you will. We've been through this before with Vietnam, and it doesn't seem like we learned very much.
Hopefully we'll have to collective will and strength to get through it all again.
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=35982
This is, quite frankly, the understatement of the century. It also should be disturbing and discouraging for every American. The Admiral goes on to say "The well is deep, but it is not infinite."
What does that even MEAN? Did anyone say, "Admiral, this is claptrap and nonsense that you are speaking. What does this really mean?" Or, "Admiral, is the "well" really that "deep"?" The Admiral can say nonsensical things like this because he knows that not that many people are paying attention, or thinking critically about the war.
What does it mean? It means that the thin slice of the population and their families and friends are going to continue to bear the brunt of this war for the forseeable future.
It means that we are going to continue to repeatedly send good men and women away. They'll still come back good men and women, but they'll keep coming back broken in mind, body and soul. And when they come back, we have to make the hard choices. Are we REALLY going to do what's necessary to take care of them, or are we going to try to do it the same way we did the war - "on the cheap".
It means that what we SAY is that we have to do the things to really help out the troops. What we MEAN is that, there is nothing we can do about this right now, we are going to keep troops fighting in Iraq, you signed up and volunteered for it (including all that small print about "stop loss"), so deal with it.
It means that people keep looking at the troops as an inexhaustable "resource", while mouthing the words that we have to "take care of them". When in reality, they are seen by some as little more than pieces on a grand chess board.
To dispute the Admiral's assertion that the "well is deep", you have to look at the whole picture. NOT just those on the ground right now, but those who've already been and are profoundly broken, and those who will go and be profoundly broken.
You have to focus on the PTSD. The physical and mental illness. The Suicides. The Homelessness. The addictions to drugs and alcohol. The inability to adjust to life back home.
You have to focus on the damage already done to the National Guard and Reserve and their ability to protect those of us at home.
Then, you start to focus on the overall financial picture. The well there is not at all "deep". They are asking for and getting astounding amounts of money (all of it borrowed) to fund these wars almost indefinitely, while at home they slash and burn social and educational programs. These programs are cut at home because we "can't afford them". Then, in the midst of that, they want to give "rebates" to 100 million Americans to stimulate economic growth.
I'm no Harvard educated economist, only a guy with an Associates Degree in Liberal Arts, but these numbers simply do not add up or jive.
But, I think the attitude of a lot of Americans who simply don't care to look at the big picture is best summed up by a comment on a Newsweek article on torture (http://www.newsweek.com/id/108719) by some person from Illinois. This person says:
"Comment: CIA and U.S. military, you guys do what you have to do, to keep me safe and happy in Illinois."
No matter how much we spend (to the detriment of the poor and disadvantaged here). No matter how many soldiers have to die, or be mangled. No matter how many "foreigners, ragheads and terrorists" have to die. Just keep me safe and happy in Illinois. The truth is, that you don't yet know it, but you are not at all safe, and when you get the final bill, that you and your next generations are going to be paying in a lot of different ways, you are not going to be at all happy.
I don't want to sound hokey or corny, or engage in hyperbole, and I know it will sound like it, but I believe who we are as a people and a nation is now at stake. Our national collective "soul" if you will. We've been through this before with Vietnam, and it doesn't seem like we learned very much.
Hopefully we'll have to collective will and strength to get through it all again.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Record Setting Suicides
Here is an interesting Washington Post article about the suicide of soldiers reaching record levels.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22923548/
The article details a systematic study conducted by Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, and it was found that:
"the current Army Suicide Prevention Program was not originally designed for a combat/deployment environment."
Now, this was not some New York Times hatchet job, this was based on a study ordered by the U. S. Army.
How on earth, after 6 (insert your favorite expletive here) YEARS OF WAR (counting the war in Afghanistan) can the Suicide Prevention Program NOT be designed for a "combat/deployment environment"? This is a statement that simply boggles my mind. This is a statement that should boggle EVERY American's mind.
The story goes on to quote a Staff Sgt. Gladys Santos, who says that "They gave me an 800 number to call if I needed help." To which she rightly replied: "When I come to feeling overwhelmed, I don't care about the 800 number. I want a one-on-one talk with a trained psychiatrist who's either been to war or understands war."
That sounds like a reasonable request to me Sgt Santos.
The story goes on to say:
"The Army was unprepared for the high number of suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued far longer than anticipated. Many Army posts still do not offer enough individual counseling and some soldiers suffering psychological problems complain that they are stigmatized by commanders. Over the past year, four high-level commissions have recommended reforms and Congress has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care, but critics charge that significant progress has not been made."
This is what happens when you trust the likes of Paul Wolfowitz who tell you that the war is going to be easy and of short duration despite a lot of military and intelligence advice to the contrary.
Remember that General Shinseki told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops and several years to pacify Iraq, comments that great military thinker Wolfowitz characterized as "wildly off the mark".
This comment by a former Army Psychologist gets to the crux of the matter:
"Increasing suicides raise "real questions about whether you can have an Army this size with multiple deployments," said David Rudd, a former Army psychologist and chairman of the psychology department at Texas Tech University."
In past posts, I have struggled with the idea of why these problems have seemingly been accelerated (homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, crime, etc) with Veterans of this war. I'm beginning to think that it has something to do with the idea that in World War II for example, the experience of the war was difused to literally millions of Americans during the period of war.
In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, the war has been borne by mostly the same thin slice of the population, sent repeatedly back to the war zone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22923548/
The article details a systematic study conducted by Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, and it was found that:
"the current Army Suicide Prevention Program was not originally designed for a combat/deployment environment."
Now, this was not some New York Times hatchet job, this was based on a study ordered by the U. S. Army.
How on earth, after 6 (insert your favorite expletive here) YEARS OF WAR (counting the war in Afghanistan) can the Suicide Prevention Program NOT be designed for a "combat/deployment environment"? This is a statement that simply boggles my mind. This is a statement that should boggle EVERY American's mind.
The story goes on to quote a Staff Sgt. Gladys Santos, who says that "They gave me an 800 number to call if I needed help." To which she rightly replied: "When I come to feeling overwhelmed, I don't care about the 800 number. I want a one-on-one talk with a trained psychiatrist who's either been to war or understands war."
That sounds like a reasonable request to me Sgt Santos.
The story goes on to say:
"The Army was unprepared for the high number of suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued far longer than anticipated. Many Army posts still do not offer enough individual counseling and some soldiers suffering psychological problems complain that they are stigmatized by commanders. Over the past year, four high-level commissions have recommended reforms and Congress has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care, but critics charge that significant progress has not been made."
This is what happens when you trust the likes of Paul Wolfowitz who tell you that the war is going to be easy and of short duration despite a lot of military and intelligence advice to the contrary.
Remember that General Shinseki told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops and several years to pacify Iraq, comments that great military thinker Wolfowitz characterized as "wildly off the mark".
This comment by a former Army Psychologist gets to the crux of the matter:
"Increasing suicides raise "real questions about whether you can have an Army this size with multiple deployments," said David Rudd, a former Army psychologist and chairman of the psychology department at Texas Tech University."
In past posts, I have struggled with the idea of why these problems have seemingly been accelerated (homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, crime, etc) with Veterans of this war. I'm beginning to think that it has something to do with the idea that in World War II for example, the experience of the war was difused to literally millions of Americans during the period of war.
In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, the war has been borne by mostly the same thin slice of the population, sent repeatedly back to the war zone.
The article details efforts by the military and the government to grapple with the issue. I believe and have said repeatedly that there are good people who are working on these issues and who care. I know this because I know the type of people who serve in the military.
But I believe that the problem is going to get to a point where it may be unmanageable, especially since there is no end in sight to our current wars, and continual talk by the Presidential candidates and others about fomenting and instigating new wars.
The question we have to ask ourselves is how much more can we ask these good people to sacrifice. To hear those in Washington tell it, the answer is "until we win" - the War on Terror, the War in Iraq. That is all well and good, except for they are usually very non-specific on what that really means. But, it does sound good to the people back home.
I think - no, I KNOW, there is definitely a breaking point. There is a breaking point for this country financially. There is a breaking point with regard to military readiness (and this article details the military's unreadiness to protect against an attack on the homeland):
(as an interesting side note, the piece makes no mention or reference to the idea that 6 years of grinding war, utilizing the Guard and Reserve could have anything to do with these issues. They used them because "they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops". The article makes you want to think that all of these issues "suddenly" cropped up and happened in a vacuum).
And, to me, most importantly, there is a breaking point of the soul of this country.
How close are we? I wish I knew, but I don't.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Martin Luther King Jr and Vietnam
Every year on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, the media usually plays portions of the "I have a dream" speech.
As good of a speech as that is, a few years ago on the holiday, I found out about this little gem:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/21/6517/
It is called "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam" and it was given in April 1967.
One of the very eloquent takeaways for me in the speech was when Dr. King says the following:
"This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently, one of them wrote these words: “Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”
As good of a speech as that is, a few years ago on the holiday, I found out about this little gem:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/21/6517/
It is called "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam" and it was given in April 1967.
Whatever the viewpoints on the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan one holds, every American should give this speech an honest read and honest consideration. I believe it has much to say about the current mind set and state of this country in 2008. There are some differences to be sure, but this speech can be used as a "template" to see how we might be doing as a nation in our current wars.
A lot of Americans will say that all of these things that Dr. King said don't apply because Vietnam was different and "9/11 changed everything".
9/11 was a horrible tragedy, there is no question of that. But, contrary to government and media spin, it did not "change everything".
Those who really believe that 9/11 changed everything believe those that don't believe it are naive about "the way the REAL world works".
Those who don't believe 9/11 changed everything believe those who do believe it just haven't had the imagination to SEE the world at peace, and our role in it.
Make no mistake, I personally understand there are BAD people in the world who sometimes need to be dealt with. With all of the hatred and killing, it is certainly difficult for a lot of people to see how peace could be possible.
For myself, I always come back to certain questions. Have these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made this country safer? Have they made us a better people? Have they influenced OTHERS in the world to view the American idea as a good way of life? Why has no one articulated what it REALLY means to "win" in Iraq?One of the very eloquent takeaways for me in the speech was when Dr. King says the following:
"This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently, one of them wrote these words: “Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”
I think every American must decide what those words mean to them.
In 2008, is the US still a beacon of freedom and democracy? Or the image of violence and militarism.
Makes you think doesn't it? Or maybe not.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Homeless Vets? Not According to Bill O'Reilly
This is a video of Bill O'Reilly essentially denying that there are homeless vets, and also video of Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Paul is also the author of the book Chasing Ghosts, Failures and Facades in Iraq: A Soldier's Perspective. I believe this is the finest book yet written on the war in Iraq (.http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Ghosts-Failures-Soldiers-Perspective/dp/0451221214/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200701568&sr=8-1)
Normally, I don't get too riled up by the delusional rantings of Bill O'Reilly (or anyone from Fox News for that matter). I am not entirely convinced that Mr. O'Reilly even believes half of what he says on the air. He is, in fact, an entertainer (as are the others in his chattering class like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbauh and Neil Boortz to name a few).
But this got me pretty interested.
For a lot of people in this country (and I know some of them personally), Bill O'Reilly's show is a major source of "news", so a lot of people's opinions on current events and issues are formed by his show (and that includes other "hot button" issues like immigration, waterboarding, etc).
That is why he must be challenged early and often on this. IAVA has a place on their website where you can go to sign an "open letter to Bill O'Reilly" (I wonder if he has "goons" that he might send if he gets a list of addresses - I remember him threatening someone awhile back? I signed the letter, so that's the chance I'll have to take).
I would say that there is virtually no chance that he will ever admit that he is wrong.
I also think what is going on is that for those on the right side of the political spectrum, they have a somewhat idealized view of the military, and the Soldiers (Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Coasties too) in it. Make no mistake. They are great people who have been handed a mission that without the Iraqi's political reconciliation is practically militarily impossible. Make no mistake, they are much better than the "leaders" who sent them there.
As long as the soldiers are over there, getting broken, maimed and killed and not causing too much trouble there is a huge outpouring of "support" for them. Yellow ribbons on cars, wearing the red shirt on Friday, etc.
BUT, when they start coming back and causing some trouble and having some issues, where does the support go? You have to remember that for some on Bill O's political spectrum, homelessness, drug addiction, etc. is a MORAL FAILING. No brave, true soldier could POSSIBLY be homeless. Or be a drug addict. Or resort to crime. That simply doesn't fit the mold. For that to happen to someone, well, they would have to be one of the "phony soldiers" who complain a lot about the war, or worse, a weakling.
They simply cannot conceive that the war (which was promised to be short, pain and cost free - a "cakewalk" if you will), and the trauma resulting from it could possibly be causing any problems whatsoever.
No. It cannot be the war. It cannot be the war which has raged for five years with literally no end in sight. It cannot be the war which a thin slice of the population keeps getting sent back to repeatedly to face a constant barrage of IED's, snipers and other surprises from a never shrinking insurgency.
No, it has to be something else "causing" these horrible stories to come out. It has to be the traitorous, America hating, soldier hating people at the New York Times and other liberal media outlets spreading filthy lies and bad news about our President and our troops.
But it is happening. I have posted a lot of things here on this blog (almost to the exclusion of posting anything else)(and they've been talking about a predicted "Tsunami" of vet homelessness), and a lot of other people are telling the stories.
As I have said, there are veterans who are coming back and adjusting to life after the war. I have said repeatedly that these vets should be systematically studied (to see what is making them "tick") and their treatment plans should be replicated as much as possible.
I do agree with one thing that more of the success stories of recovering vets could be found and told.
I'll be looking for them. But, I will continue to tell the other stories that I find too.
Meanwhile, Bill, you should be looking for the homeless veterans that supposedly don't exist. Being in New York City, you probably don't have to go too far.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
89% - Wonder what that's all about.....Part II
Got some feedback on my blog from yesterday (which was kind of cool), and also got sent some articles disputing the articles I posted yesterday from the New York Times.
Generally the articles were of two types. One type questioned the validity of the statistics, and the methodology of gathering the statistics (which is an entirely valid argument). The other genre were of the type that insisted that it was the traitorous, liberal, soldier hating, America hating New York Times trying to get even with the soldiers because the surge was so successful. The best example of this was a piece by Ralph Peters.
Over the past several months, I have tried to document in a hopefully non-sensational, non-exploitative way these issues (i.e. the crime, the alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD, etc) in this forum.
I also want to always be thinking about and talking about SOLUTIONS to these problems.
I think there is a pretty compelling argument that SOMETHING is going on. I believe the cases they used, while maybe being "cherry picked" were disturbing enough to comment on.
I highlighted the case of Mr. Sepi (many of the articles chastised the use of this person as someone who they tried to make look like "Rambo").
My interest in him was that I felt his case was almost a clinical example of how NOT to successfully integrate back into society after the war.
Make no mistake (and maybe I wasn't clear enough), nothing was DONE to this young man. HE chose to withdraw himself. HE chose to move to a place where he didn't know anybody. HE chose to live in a situation that was physically dangerous. HE chose to continue to carry a weapon and continue to drink. HE chose to ignore the advice given to him to show up for his alcohol treatment.
It was as if he had a checklist on "how to screw your life up" and he went down and checked off all of them for good measure.
As I said yesterday, there are many vets who are making the good choices for their lives, and we should continue to look to them and replicate their treatment plans and ideas as best as possible.
In the end though, how do you get through to a person such as this? Is there an ability to do so? Or is he just "the cost of doing business" for freedom's sake?
One thing I have been looking at lately is a program called Battlemind (http://www.battlemind.org/index.html). This seems interesting to me, although I do not know if this is a solution to try to solve these problems.
I don't think the problem is coming up with programs to take care of our troops.
I think the problems are with funding them (and this article chronicles Maryland's efforts on trying to fund their National Guard readjustment programs http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160065,00.html), keeping track of who is going through them, systematically making sure everyone is going through them, and following up to make sure everyone is getting the help they need.
Then, I believe the biggest thing would be to systematically make sure that these programs are EFFECTIVE.
In an earlier blog (New Years Resolution), I chronicled Montana's struggles with taking care of their vets.
Their governor (Brian Schweitzer) said "The federal government does a remarkable job of converting a citizen to a warrior, I think they have an equal responsibility converting a warrior back to a citizen."
I think that is still a rallying cry. But it cannot only be the responsibility of the Federal Government.
I really believe that there are good people within the system who have the very best interests of the soldiers and their families, but I believe that these efforts seem pretty fragmented and haphazard.
I would love for someone to tell me that I am wrong about all this, and show me where the systematized thinking and problem solving is. Until I get those answers, I'm going to keep writing about this.
Occasionally I'll get it wrong (or wrong enough), but I think we're in big trouble if we don't solve these problems.
Generally the articles were of two types. One type questioned the validity of the statistics, and the methodology of gathering the statistics (which is an entirely valid argument). The other genre were of the type that insisted that it was the traitorous, liberal, soldier hating, America hating New York Times trying to get even with the soldiers because the surge was so successful. The best example of this was a piece by Ralph Peters.
Over the past several months, I have tried to document in a hopefully non-sensational, non-exploitative way these issues (i.e. the crime, the alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD, etc) in this forum.
I also want to always be thinking about and talking about SOLUTIONS to these problems.
I think there is a pretty compelling argument that SOMETHING is going on. I believe the cases they used, while maybe being "cherry picked" were disturbing enough to comment on.
I highlighted the case of Mr. Sepi (many of the articles chastised the use of this person as someone who they tried to make look like "Rambo").
My interest in him was that I felt his case was almost a clinical example of how NOT to successfully integrate back into society after the war.
Make no mistake (and maybe I wasn't clear enough), nothing was DONE to this young man. HE chose to withdraw himself. HE chose to move to a place where he didn't know anybody. HE chose to live in a situation that was physically dangerous. HE chose to continue to carry a weapon and continue to drink. HE chose to ignore the advice given to him to show up for his alcohol treatment.
It was as if he had a checklist on "how to screw your life up" and he went down and checked off all of them for good measure.
As I said yesterday, there are many vets who are making the good choices for their lives, and we should continue to look to them and replicate their treatment plans and ideas as best as possible.
In the end though, how do you get through to a person such as this? Is there an ability to do so? Or is he just "the cost of doing business" for freedom's sake?
One thing I have been looking at lately is a program called Battlemind (http://www.battlemind.org/index.html). This seems interesting to me, although I do not know if this is a solution to try to solve these problems.
I don't think the problem is coming up with programs to take care of our troops.
I think the problems are with funding them (and this article chronicles Maryland's efforts on trying to fund their National Guard readjustment programs http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160065,00.html), keeping track of who is going through them, systematically making sure everyone is going through them, and following up to make sure everyone is getting the help they need.
Then, I believe the biggest thing would be to systematically make sure that these programs are EFFECTIVE.
In an earlier blog (New Years Resolution), I chronicled Montana's struggles with taking care of their vets.
Their governor (Brian Schweitzer) said "The federal government does a remarkable job of converting a citizen to a warrior, I think they have an equal responsibility converting a warrior back to a citizen."
I think that is still a rallying cry. But it cannot only be the responsibility of the Federal Government.
I really believe that there are good people within the system who have the very best interests of the soldiers and their families, but I believe that these efforts seem pretty fragmented and haphazard.
I would love for someone to tell me that I am wrong about all this, and show me where the systematized thinking and problem solving is. Until I get those answers, I'm going to keep writing about this.
Occasionally I'll get it wrong (or wrong enough), but I think we're in big trouble if we don't solve these problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)