What Exactly Does It Mean to Love Our Troops???

[charlabob]

Joshua Kors has written a two-part expose of one particularly egregious practice in our ongoing war against the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. Basically, the military is denying coverage to kids who have seriious, though not life threatening, wounds, based on what they claim are pre-existing PERSONALITY DISORDER. Mental health conditions like large bullet holes in their legs or vaginal bleeding that turned out to be appendicitis.

They guilt-trip the kids, by telling them they’ll endanger their fellow soldiers if they stay in to fight for a medical discharge, and they hustle them out with no coverage. The soldiers are “all right”, as far as they know, so a good number of them go along with the farce. 22,000 so far.

On the other hand, the Army does everything possible to deny that real mental health problems are real. So, if you’re wounded physically, you use up a mental health discharge, but if you’re wounded mentally, you can’t get one.

Note that the Army doesn’t even bother to deny that they’re doing this. They did a paper investigation (ie, didn’t talk to any of the people involved). Then they said, “Nope–seems fine to us–case closed.”

Rage does not begin to describe my fury — the next time someone accuses me of hating the troops because I don’t support this obscene illegal war, I may overcome my commitment to nonviolence.

This two part series is long, but, since I can’t find any other coverage, I can’t point you to summaries. Please read it and write to your congresscritters and presidential candidates and DO SOMETHING. This cannot be allowed to continue.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070409/kors

So, the next time McBush tells you how much they support the troops, ask what they are doing about crap like this, or a GI Bill of Rights. Not to mention when they will end this senseless, useless war.

Share This

[charlabob]

More details on McCain’s love for the troops: he decided to oppose the New GI Bill of Rights, cosponsored by Senators Webb (D) and Hagel (R), because its generosity will encourage soldiers to leave the military. 54 senators, including Obama and Clinton, have signed on as co-sponsors.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/04/15/mccain_bill/index.html

Here are the details of the bill. BTW, please contact Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, who hasn’t signed on yet either. Since Bush has vowed to veto the bill, we need 60 senators to override the veto and the filibuster that will precede it.

http://honda.house.gov/GIBillofRights.shtml

Share This

[Anonymous]

I don’t even know how this is defensible. Wouldn’t it conversely be true that more would be likely to enlist, knowing they would be taken care of?

Share This

[charlabob]

Maria Cantwell’s office is saying that she hasn’t co-sponsored the Webb bill (S. 22, or the Post 9/11 GI Bill of Rights,) because she has her own (S. 1261, or the GI Bill for Life).

Cantwell’s pitch focuses on the fact that only about half of the vets eligible even apply for the current GI Education benefits. Her assertion is that eliminating the 10 – 14 year time limit to apply will cause more vets to sign up.

Let’s say a discharged twenty-five year-old is a typical Iraq vet. It is doubtful that he or she wants to wait until they’re forty to begin college or vocational training. I think that such a person has been able to have a post-military career on their own. Or, maybe, they have an addiction or PTSD. Typical is not what I would call persons for whom the time limit is a problem.

The issue is money. The current benefit only covers about 60% of the tuition to a state college, at the high end. In order to get that, the vet must first pay $1200 to apply for the benefit. That’s the real problem, cash up front and not enough to cover any where near the cost of board and books. Getting a better benefit for vets is why S. 22 is the bill favored by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. The maximum yearly benefit would nearly double the approximately $10,000 potential in the current law.

Aside from the specifics in the bills, procedurally there is no reason why Cantwell can’t co-sponsor S. 22 as well. All the co-sponsors of S. 1261 have also done so for S. 22. Additionally, S. 22 has already passed the Armed Services Committee, so it is much further along than Cantwell’s in the “School House Rock” of legislation (“I’m only a bill, up on Capital Hill …).

If Maria is so concerned about a longer timeframe for vets, she should modify her legislation so as to provide the current benefit for life once those in S. 22 run out.

Call Cantwell’s office and ask her to get on board as a co-sponsor of S. 22. Her local office numbers are 206-220-6400 & 206-220-6404 – FAX, web form http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Share This

[JanS]

an interesting side story about this…look how one soldier was treated…

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-denied-benefits-to-surviving/20080417072509990001

Share This

[charlabob]

Thanks Jan. The two-part article from the Nation was packed with the same kinds of examples. As JT said, it’s indefensible SO no one even bothers to try to defend it. I’m glad you found something more succinct. I still hope some folks take time to read the long articles–but this definitely gives the flavor of the problem.

Share This

[JoB]

We don’t properly equip our soldiers.. we don’t honor our agreements to them.. we pay them so little that their families have to depend upon public aid… we deny them medical care… they have had to fight for the right to benefits and fight not to be sent back to Iraq after their enlistments have ended…

and they are subject to both US and military law.. even while following a commander’s orders.

but we pay “security companies” top dollar, allowing them to honor their employees contracts, provide incredible medical benefits and very good life insurance for their employees’s families and pay them top dollar…

and we hold both individuals and the companies that employ them blameless for actions they instigate “on our behalf”…

This is how we honor our troops.

Share This

[Anonymous]

It’s been stated more than once by the republicans on here, to keep the casualty number in perspective. It’s only 4000 after all. And what of all the injuries.

(Reuters) – About 300,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, but about half receive no care, an independent study said on Thursday.

The study by the RAND Corp. also estimated that another 320,000 troops have sustained a possible traumatic brain injury during deployment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/WireStory?id=4674945&page=1

Share This

[Author]

Posts