View Full Version: In Every War, a Soldier's Woes

Philippines Defense Forces Forum > World Military News and Issues > In Every War, a Soldier's Woes


Title: In Every War, a Soldier's Woes


saver111 - July 12, 2005 11:28 AM (GMT)
Toughing it in the Afghan army
By Tom Coghlan
In Kandahar

Afghan army
Morale is low in the ranks of the Afghan army

Dwarfed by the air conditioned sprawl of the nearby US airbase, the barracks of the Afghan National Army's 205th "Atal" (Hero) corps outside Kandahar are, to put it politely, extremely basic.

There is none of the shopping mall consumption that characterises the neighbouring US base. No DVDs, "air con" or golf buggies to transport soldiers to the groaning trolleys of the mess hall.

The ANA soldiers take their water from the non-potable tap that feeds the toilet block; they have not received mineral water or canned drinks for months.

They wash their dishes in the showers, outside which a green pool of sewage festers. Their food comes topped with buzzing clouds of flies.

The Afghan National Army are very much the junior partner in the ugly, forgotten war being fought here in southern Afghanistan; their 3,000 man contribution set against the 18,000-man US force.

But it will not be so forever.

Low morale

By 2007 it is planned that the army will top 70,000 men, allowing the foreign forces to begin to leave.

But this assumes that all goes to plan.

Soldiers say that food and other conditions are poor
And at present all is not well with the Afghan National Army's southern command, which was first deployed last September.

What is clear is that morale is low.

"Everyone wants to run away," said one sergeant. "We cannot tolerate this."

The soldiers' complaints focused largely on the perception that they had not been given a fair deal.

The ANA receive their wages from the US government, and at a starting salary of $75 a month they are comparable or slightly better to those of most civil servants.

But this is before taking into account the risks that the troops in the southern command face.

Many men talked bitterly of a $2 a day bonus they say they were promised for "dangerous operations".

It has never been paid. The Defence Ministry say it will be.

The soldiers also said food and conditions were very poor and deteriorating.

The biggest problem though was how to get their cash wages home to their families when they have to serve up to half a year at a time without leave.

Afghanistan has no banking system.

The soldiers say that their loved ones face starvation.

It is a logistical nightmare with which the Afghan government says it is wrestling.

Casualty rate

Then there is the threat from the Taleban.

The army has lost dozens of men to a resurgent Taleban insurgency
Since March, government forces have lost dozens of men to a reinvigorated Taleban insurgency.

The fighting has been hard and without body armour and heavy weaponry.

The ANA inevitably suffer much higher casualties than US troops.

And to this has been added horror.

An ANA patrol was almost wiped out last month and its wounded tortured and executed by the Taleban.

"The Taleban had used knives on them," said Mohammed, one of the patrol's survivors.

"They had no eyes, no noses. Their mouths were destroyed. These were our best friends."

A much repeated, though erroneous, rumour said the men were also castrated.

The incident has compounded already fragile morale, particularly after the discovery that the families of dead soldiers' only receive a single $400 payment for their loss.

"I am afraid of what the Taleban would do to me," said one soldier.

"A boy was crying and asking his commander to go home because he is the only son of his family."

One soldier wondered whether it was right for the ANA to be "helping foreigners to kill Muslims," though others said that achieving "national unity" necessitated the defeat of the Taleban.

Uniting force

And yet, there is much to be admired about the ANA.

Afghan soldier
The soldiers are considered to be disciplined and honest
It is respected by US officers as a generally disciplined and uncorrupted force, unlike the National Police.

Many of the ANA's officers are capable and boast vast combat experience.

"They are some of the bravest soldiers I've seen and I'm proud to be associated with them," said Colonel Tom Wilkinson, a liaison and training officer.

Above all the ANA appears to have succeeded in integrating Afghanistan's multitude of different ethnic groups, all of which were responsible for reciprocal human rights abuses during Afghanistan's long civil war.

"We are just like brothers of the same family," said Sergeant Mohammed Wali from the Tajik north of the country.

The recruitment of the ANA has meticulously followed a policy of maintaining an ethnic balance in units which broadly reflects that found country wide.

As such it remains a popular army with many Afghans, the green bereted soldiers affectionately nicknamed the "Chai Sap" (Green Tea); a gently teasing pun on Isaf, the name of the international stabilisation force.
----
Sounds familiar? To our men and women in the AFP,
:salute:

saver111 - July 23, 2005 12:05 PM (GMT)
Marines in Iraq ease tension with humor, pranks

Thursday, July 21, 2005; Posted: 8:25 p.m. EDT (00:25 GMT)

HADITHA, Iraq (AP) -- Slumped on the doorstep of a war-damaged police station, worn out and sweltering in 110 degree heat, Pfc. Derek Davidson couldn't resist a joke about a friend who'd stayed back at base after injuring himself lifting weights.

"I gotta go to the gym more often," Davidson lamented. Around him, a small group of fellow U.S. Marines, taking a brief break from battle, erupted into snickers.

As they have throughout their history, the Marines here often turn to jokes or pranks to relieve the tension of living in constant danger, these days while patrolling dusty streets of this western Iraqi town.

The humor is often dark and almost always salty, focusing on aching backs, alcohol, their own mortality -- and, of course, old girlfriends.

At one Haditha home that the Marines commandeered, a dog handler instructed his German Shepherd, who usually sniffs out explosives, to sit on the head of a resting Marine. That sparked roars of laughter and approval as the startled target tried to scramble away from the obedient dog.

Other Marines pack boulders in their friends' backpacks before patrols, then try to suppress laughs as they watch their buddies struggle with the extra weight -- as if Marines weren't laden enough with body armor, weapons, ammunition and other gear.

After three days of sporadic fighting where civilians, insurgents and suicide bombers all look alike, Capt. Christopher Toland, a company commander, and Davidson, 20, of Columbus, Ohio, and their fellow Marines were tired and hot and just looking for a break from the tension.

Toland, a 6-foot-4 Texan from Austin who serves in the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, once played a Secret Service agent on the TV series "The West Wing." Now he regales his Marines with tales of alcohol, women and girlfriends gone bad.

"At least in the 'Nam, they had booze and women," Toland jokingly complained last month, speaking of the Vietnam War.

But just as quickly, the Marines can turn deadly serious.

While many took naps in this building with bloodstains on the walls, an armored vehicle ran over a hidden land mine just outside. The explosion thundered through the hallways and sent waves of fine sand rushing inside through broken windows. Fortunately, the worst injuries this time were damaged ear drums.

As they patrol streets, catch quick naps and patch up the wounded, the Marines' dry sarcasm is a staple.

During one patrol on a market street -- where rotting vegetables abandoned by salesmen festered in the desert sun -- a low-flying U.S. warplane roared overhead, prompting a group of Marines to look up.

"It's the Iraqi Air Force," quipped Sgt. Nicholas Moore, a native of Virginia.

Often jokes take on a dark tinge, which may only be funny to those who regularly face their own mortality in a war where death and maiming by roadside bombs is an everyday possibility.

As he said goodbye to a friend departing for a mission, Sgt. Shawn Bryan of Albuquerque, New Mexico, warned jokingly: "If you get whacked, I'm going to take your TV."

And, during the ride to Iraq's western border for the Operation Matador offensive on insurgents in mid-May, one Marine from the 3rd Battalion dozed off, prompting the others to quietly put on their gas masks.

"Wake up! Gas attack!" they then screamed.

Their startled, gasping friend scrambled to throw on his own mask as the others burst into laughter. Three weeks later, some of them still chuckled at the memory

:lollol: :bounce: :banana: :brrt: hmmm....it does helps :armyLol:

saver111 - July 26, 2005 12:14 PM (GMT)
Guardsman pleads guilty in death of Iraqi
Soldier accused of trying to cover up crime by shooting self

FORT KNOX, Ky. - An Indiana national guardsman pleaded guilty Monday to negligent homicide in the death of an Iraqi police officer, a crime he was accused of attempting to cover up by shooting himself in the stomach.

Cpl. Dustin Berg, 22, will spend 18 months in prison and receive a bad conduct discharge from the Army.

Berg, of Ferdinand, Ind., had changed his story multiple times during the investigation, initially saying the Iraqi had pointed an AK-47 at him to prevent Berg from reporting insurgent activity. On Monday, however, Berg said that Iraqi police officers as a matter of habit carried their guns with the barrels pointed slightly upward.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“I shouldn’t have automatically considered him a threat,” Berg said. “I misread the situation.”

It was the latest in at least a dozen court-martials of U.S. troops accused in the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Berg was accused of killing the Iraqi police officer in November 2003, then shooting himself in the stomach to give the impression of a gunfight and block an investigation.

“I thought I was going to die,” Berg testified during a May hearing. “I felt I had no choice but to fear for my life.”

Soldier shoots himself in stomach
He later admitted that he shot himself with the Iraqi’s weapon in an attempt to limit questions since there were no witnesses. Three other soldiers from his unit were under investigation at the time, and Berg said he was scared he would be, too.

Prosecutors had asked that Berg receive a dishonorable discharge from the Army and nearly four years in confinement. He had faced up to 14 years in prison.

Berg’s civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, asked the court to discharge Berg but not confine him to a military prison because Berg is newly married and has a child on the way.

“He’s already punished himself. He shot himself. He’s already pleaded guilty. He’s already accepted responsibility but a lengthy term of confinement will have no rehabilitative effect,” Gittins said.

The charges against Berg raised questions about whether a soldier’s right to defend himself depends on the presence of a witness.

Most military personnel accused of murder argue self-defense because there are few other options available on the battlefield, said Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Soldiers can claim they were acting in self-defense or that they were following orders, Solis said.

At least eight U.S. soldiers have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the deaths of Iraqis.
-----
Casualties of war... :armycry:

saver111 - July 29, 2005 02:02 PM (GMT)
Ex-soldier wins stress damages

An ex-soldier has been awarded £620,000 damages from the Ministry of Defence for stress suffered while on duty.

Malcolm New, from Llandudno, claimed at the High Court that the MoD failed to identify and treat his post traumatic stress disorder.

The former Royal Welch Fusilier said he was exposed to repeated stress during five tours in Northern Ireland.

Mr New, 46, is believed to be the first to receive an award of this kind. The MoD had disputed the claim.

Responding to the judgment, Mr New, who is described as a virtual recluse, said: "This was never about money, it was about recognition for all who have served Queen and country."

It was over the MoD's failure to refer him for medical treatment that Mr New sought damages.

Earlier this year, the High Court heard how he was sent home from duty because colleagues thought he was "losing it".

'Outstanding leadership'

Mr New rose to the rank of staff sergeant in the Royal Welch Fusiliers during his 18-year Army career, and excelled in intelligence work during his tours in Northern Ireland which took place between 1979 and 1994.

On receiving the British Empire Medal in 1990, he was praised for "outstanding leadership" and his commanding officer said he "really gets to grips with the terrorists".

Mr New's barrister Stephen Irwin QC told the court that his client had been refused redundancy ahead of a fifth tour.

Describing Mr New as an "upright" soldier, Mr Irwin said he should have been referred for medical treatment at this stage.

However, he did not see a psychiatrist until 1997 - three years after his discharge - and he was diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr Irwin told the hearing that the former Royal Welch Fusiliers' colour sergeant could have served the maximum 24 years in the army but for the "combat stress".

'Traumatic events'

Robert Jay, QC for the Ministry of Defence, had argued Mr New had carried a number of "risk factors" from childhood which increased the likelihood of psychiatric illness.

Speaking after the judgement, Mr New's solicitor, Richard Scorer, said his client hoped the case would help change the way "psychiatric casualties of warfare" were dealt with by the armed forces.

He added: "Just because the injury is psychological it doesn't make it any less real or any less deserving of treatment.

"Malcolm served five tours of Northern Ireland and witnessed a whole series of traumatic events - bombings (and) shootings of close colleagues.

"The court found the army ought to have recognised that he had these problems and provided him with the necessary treatment."

Mr New had made his claims alongside two other former soldiers - Melvyn West, from Barnsley, and Gary Owen, from Warrington.

They also claim the Army failed to refer them for treatment in Northern Ireland and Bosnia respectively.
-----

QUOTE
would help change the way "psychiatric casualties of warfare" were dealt with by the armed forces.

saver111 - August 2, 2005 12:31 PM (GMT)
Soldier sentenced for refusing return to Iraq
Court-martial acquits on desertion but convicts on lesser charge

FORT STEWART, Ga. - An Army mechanic who refused to go to Iraq while he sought conscientious objector status was acquitted of desertion but found guilty of a lesser charge during a court-martial Thursday.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman, 40, was sentenced to 15 months in prison on the charge of missing movement. He also was given a dishonorable discharge from the military and a reduction in rank to private. If he had been found guilty of desertion, he could have faced five years in prison.

Benderman failed to deploy with his 3rd Infantry Division unit Jan. 8, 10 days after he told Fort Stewart commanders he was seeking a discharge as a conscientious objector.

Benderman said during the sentencing phase that he didn’t mean for his actions to hurt his comrades.

“I am not against soldiers,” he said. “I don’t care what anyone says. Though some might take my actions as being against soldiers, I want everyone to be home and safe and raising their families. I don’t want anyone to be hurt in a combat zone.”

‘I never ran from it’
He has previously said he refused to deploy to Iraq after his first combat tour during the 2003 invasion made him opposed to war.

In Iraq, he said he witnessed a young girl suffering third-degree burns to her arm, dogs feeding on corpses in a mass grave and Iraqi civilians drinking from mud puddles.

“I went to war. I never ran from it,” Benderman said Wednesday. “I experienced it, and I realized it’s not what I should be doing. In my opinion, it’s not what anybody should be doing in the modern world.”

Benderman’s attorney said his client acted out of confusion rather than defiance, thinking he had been excused from deploying.

But a military prosecutor said Benderman simply wanted to avoid a dangerous mission.

“They were hours away from moving,” said prosecutor Capt. Jonathan DeJesus. “They certainly couldn’t replace him, and they were in no position to go find him.”

QUOTE
“I experienced it, and I realized it’s not what I should be doing. In my opinion, it’s not what anybody should be doing in the modern world.”

saver111 - August 3, 2005 11:59 AM (GMT)
The Iraq infection
Military doctors fight to contain a potentially deadly enemy


By Matthew Herper
Updated: 7:11 a.m. ET Aug. 2, 2005

Military doctors are fighting to contain an outbreak of a potentially deadly drug-resistant bacteria that apparently originated in the Iraqi soil. So far at least 280 people, mostly soldiers returning from the battlefield, have been infected, a number of whom contracted the illness while in U.S. military hospitals.

Most of the victims are relatively young troops who were injured by the land mines, mortars and suicide bombs that have permeated the Iraq conflict. No active-duty soldiers have died from the infections, but five extremely sick patients who were in the same hospitals as the injured soldiers have died after being infected with the bacteria, Acinetobacter baumannii.

"This is a very large outbreak," says Arjun Srinivasan, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. public health service and a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control.

Acinetobacter was the second most prevalent infection for soldiers in Vietnam, but the military did not expect to see it as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Researchers are still working to understand where it came from and how patients were infected.

Doctors worry not only about soldiers who are already infected but also those who are carrying Acinetobacter on their skin even though they themselves are not infected. Lt. Cmdr. Kyle Petersen, an infectious disease specialist at National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda, Md.,says his hospital treated 396 patients who had been wounded in Iraq between May 2003 and February 2005. About 10% were infected and another 20% were found to have Acinetobacter bacteria on their skin but were not infected. The rate of appearance of the bacteria has "been flat-out steady," says Petersen.

The same has been true at Army hospitals that include Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Tripler Medical Center inHawaii and Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where there has been a total of about 240 cases of patients infected, while another 500 have carried the bacteria, according to Col. Bruno Petrucelli, director of epidemiology and disease surveillance for the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine.

Petrucelli says the five patients who died were at Army hospitals — most of them at Walter Reed. They were already suffering from serious health problems before they contracted the bacteria. "These were the sickest of the sick," says Petrucelli. The infections are split evenly among wound infections, respiratory infections and a mix of bloodstream and other infections.

Preventing the bacteria's spread has required doctors to take extreme care, putting all patients who are returning from the theater of war into isolation. "It's one of those pathogens that once it gets into a population and a chain of care, it can set up shop. Trying to contain the spread of this infection to other people is very difficult," says Andrew Shorr, a doctor who recently left Walter Reed for Washington Hospital Center. "What has happened over the past 18 months is every patient who shows up, we assume they're positive until they are demonstrated negative."

One of those infected in Iraq was Marine Cpl. Sean Locker. On July 10, he was attacked by a suicide bomber in a car while guarding a convoy. Shrapnel hit him in his nose, his right index finger and his right eye, blinding him. His left lung collapsed. But the worst damage was done to his left arm. It was amputated, and Locker says he knew it would be as soon as he looked down at it. "I tried to stay level-headed," he says.

Locker, 25, was flown to an army base in Landstuhl, Germany, and then to NNMC in Bethesda. There, doctors found that what was left of his arm after the amputation had been infected with Acinetobacter. For Locker, the prognosis was good, as two years of hard experience treating patients who had returned from war had taught doctors how to deal with the infection — and to prevent it from spreading to sicker patients. Using imipenem, one of three intravenous antibiotics effective against Acinetobacter, doctors are treating Locker's infection. He hopes to go home soon and buy a new truck.

But other patients have been less fortunate, as they have suffered from infections of the bone, the bloodstream or of internal organs, which have complicated their care. Lt. Cmdr. Petersen says that NNMC's annual bill for the kind of antibiotics Locker received has increased tenfold to $200,000.

Besides imipenem, which carries a risk of seizure, two other drugs have worked. Another is amikacin, which does not work for bone infections and has not been effective against some strains of the bacteria. A third is colistin, an antibiotic doctors had stopped using because of its toxic effects on the kidneys.

"It is a scary thing about any drug-resistant bacteria, when you grow it for the very first time out of a patient and you've only got three antibiotics, one so old that we had to bring it back from the archives," says Col. Joel Fishbain, chairman of the infection-control committee at Walter Reed.

The methods used by the military in dealing with Acinetobacter represent a model for preventing drug-resistant infections, which kill some 100,000 patients per year in the U.S.

Patients arriving are swabbed in the armpit and the groin. Until the cultures show they are negative, the soldiers are kept in isolation. Doctors and nurses make sure to wear gloves and gowns when coming into contact with them. At NNMC, the cost of gowns and gloves to help prevent infection has jumped 80% to $12,000, according to Petersen. Soldiers and their family members are not confined to the room, however — the main point is to keep doctors and nurses from spreading bacteria from one patient to another.

At NNMC, an added step has been taken by making sure infected and contaminated patients are kept in clusters of rooms separate from those who don't test positive for Acinetobacter.

A patient such as Locker might not even think much about Acinetobacter if the infection can be treated quickly and doesn't cause other problems. But some others feel they weren't given enough information about the bug — perhaps because military researchers themselves were still putting together answers.

Merlin Clark, a civilian contractor who was in Iraq doing humanitarian de-mining, was also infected with Acinetobacter and treated at Walter Reed, according to his wife, Marcie Hascall Clark. "My biggest problem," she says, "isn't so much that my husband had it, but why didn't they tell me about it?"

saver111 - August 15, 2005 08:29 AM (GMT)
Combat stress: As old as war itself

By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News

The physical wounds left by the war in Iraq are all too easy to see. But survivors of war are often left with mental scars as well, whether they are soldiers or civilians, victors or vanquished. In this five-part series, BBC News explores what happens when the fighting stops - but the trauma continues.

World War I veterans called it shell shock.

The World War II generation talked about soldiers "going psycho".

Today it is called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - psychological trauma caused by bad experiences.

Victims often find themselves having nightmares or being unable to sleep. In many cases, they have intrusive flashbacks to the events that caused the trauma.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, tens of thousands of US soldiers - and hundreds from the UK - have been diagnosed with PTSD and related problems such as depression.

It is much harder to get a picture of the situation in Iraq because of cultural differences and the relative lack of psychological services there.

But experts and eyewitnesses agree that the invasion and insurgency are certain to have caused serious mental health problems for many.

Emotional turmoil

Dr Jonathan Shay, a US psychiatrist who has worked with Vietnam veterans for many years, says combat stress is an age-old problem - certainly one known to the ancient Greeks.

In his book Odysseus in America, he argues that the Homeric hero was a severe combat stress case - a loner and deceiver who had murderous rages.

Society has a duty to its soldiers, advocates say
"Combat stress is as old as the human species," he says - and, in a way, a very normal phenomenon.

"It is an absolutely valid adaptation to survive in a horrific situation. In war, people really are trying to kill you. You are surrounded by enemies and have to be prepared to kill instantly to survive."

Soldiers - and civilians caught up in war - become hyper-vigilant, unnaturally alert and focused.

And combat can have a devastating effect on a person's emotional health.

"We shut down all emotions that do not serve survival - grief, sweetness, fear," Dr Shay says.

But one emotion may remain switched on, he adds: anger.

"So a veteran comes home with all emotions shut down except for anger. Guess what this does in the family, in the workplace. It's a problem," he says.

'Limiting life'

Some cope with it by withdrawing from society in one way or another.

"There are numerous examples where a veteran will severely limit his life, isolating himself to protect us," Dr Shay says.

"They will tell you: 'If I go out in public, I know I'm going to meet some jerk who's going to cross me and I'll do something and spend the rest of my life in jail.' Many truly don't want to hurt other people."

Children react after US soldiers fired on a car they were in, killing their parents
Iraqi children have seen their parents killed before their eyes

Those are the extreme cases, of course. Only a minority of soldiers - even those who see combat - experience PTSD.

One recent UK study of Iraq veterans even suggested that a successful military deployment could be beneficial for a soldier's mental health.

But Jamie Hacker-Hughes, the author of that study, emphasised that his subjects were "professional soldiers who went as a unit, did exactly what they were trained to do, had a successful outcome, and were there for a relatively short time".

And the sample was fairly small - 254 soldiers.

A much larger US study of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan found up to 17% suffering PTSD, depression, or general anxiety.

And while some research has been done on the British and US soldiers who served in Iraq, there is much less data on the mental health of Iraqi soldiers or civilians on the receiving end of the war.

Leslie Carrick-Smith, a leading British expert on PTSD, says the "propensity for trauma would be the same if not greater" among Iraqis caught up in combat zones.

Baghdad has a psychiatric hospital, but it is understaffed, under-resourced and overwhelmed.

Khalid, a surgeon in Baghdad, says mental health is a low priority in post-war Iraq.

"Being operated on physically is the most important," he says. "No-one had, or has, the time to ask: 'Are you afraid? Are you stressed?'"

Widespread effects

John Henry Parker runs Veterans and Families, a California-based organisation dedicated to supporting soldiers and their loved ones when they return from combat.

He warns that soldiers suffering from psychological trauma pose a risk to themselves, their families and society if they are not treated.

"They burn through their family and the goodwill of everyone they know, because there's no way a normal person can deal with PTSD.

"We're not trained for it. People have to part ways and it's ugly," he says.

And in the United States, tens of millions of people are affected, he says.

"There are about 25 million veterans in America.

"Multiply 25 million veterans by their spouses, their surviving parents, their aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters, brothers - that's 100 million people."
-----

Recently, one Ex-Army soldier ran amok, killing one. Are we taking care of our own soldiers?

saver111 - August 15, 2005 11:19 AM (GMT)
'Marine of the Year' shot at noisy crowd

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts (AP) -- A veteran recently named "Marine of the Year" for his service in Iraq was charged with attempted murder after firing a shotgun from his apartment window as a group of noisy revelers stood outside a nightclub, police said.

Two people were hit by bullet fragments and suffered minor injuries.

Daniel Cotnoir, 33, had called police minutes earlier to complain about the noise coming from the street shortly before 3 a.m. Saturday, The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune reported.

He later told authorities someone had thrown an empty bottle through his bedroom window and he feared for the safety of his wife and two daughters, who were home, the newspaper reported.

Cotnoir was being held on $100,000 bail and scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

"It was the craziest night of my life," said Kelvin Castro, 20, one of the two people injured. "I don't know what that guy's intentions were."

Cotnoir has frequently called police to complain about noise and fights outside the Punto Finale nightclub. Last year, police said, he claimed someone leaving the club had fired a gunshot at his apartment.

During his tour in Iraq last year, Cotnoir had been a military mortician responsible for preparing soldiers for open-casket funerals.

The job took a heavy psychological toll, he told the Eagle-Tribune in an interview last month after the Marine Corps Times named Cotnoir its "Marine of the Year," an award presented to him at a ceremony in Washington. At the time, he was getting counseling at a veterans hospital.

"It's a lot harder to talk about the job now than it was at the time to actually do it," Cotnoir told the newspaper then. "The stories I've gained from my deployment aren't the kind of stories you share."
----
War, getting its toll.

saver111 - August 20, 2005 11:59 AM (GMT)
Iraq's future army

A highly select group of 35 Iraqi soldiers has completed a three-month training course at the UK's Infantry Battle School in Brecon, south Wales.

The soldiers will form the core of the teaching staff at al-Rustamiya Military Academy, training the Iraqi army.

It was the first time the UK army had trained a group of Iraqi soldiers as a unit.
----
And here are some of their comments and ideas.:

QUOTE
"We have one homeland whose name is Iraq."

He wants Iraqis to put the pre-Saddam past behind them.

"We must open new books. We must be forgiving."


QUOTE
I'm loyal to my country and I want to get peace back," he says.

"We've got to have a very good army to secure the country and the people. That means training well, behaving professionally and being strong."


QUOTE
"Muslim people believe the future is in God's hands, but we must make it as well.

"The Iraqi people must help us if they want to live in peace.


QUOTE
"We are not political. We are military. The orders come from higher up the chain of command."


QUOTE
"For well-educated people, there is no difference between Shia, Sunni and Kurd,"

He has no doubt that things are better in Iraq now than they were before: "Nowadays there are no restrictions. There is freedom."

saver111 - August 25, 2005 11:23 AM (GMT)
Band of Brothers

Idaho's real-life brothers in arms

(CNN) -- As the war in Iraq stretches on, American military families feel a mixture of pride and anxiety that comes with having a loved one in a combat zone. The family of Leon and Tammy Pruett knows those feelings four times over.

The Pruetts have four sons serving in combat in Iraq. Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff are completing an 18-month tour of duty in Iraq with the Army National Guard. Leon and the couple's fifth son, Eren, are just back from Iraq, and daughter Emily would have gone but had not completed her training when her brothers shipped out.

The four brothers are "'weekend warriors" who left their jobs and families in Idaho to fight a war far removed from their rural hometown.

Why would one family be willing to risk so much for the war in Iraq? The Pruetts feel it is their duty to serve, that other people in the world have a right to some of the freedoms and privileges Americans have. And, as Tammy Pruett says, "If not my sons, then whose?"

A parent's daily feeling

QUOTE
what it's like to be waiting at home for "the boys to come home."

saver111 - September 30, 2005 09:58 AM (GMT)
Soldiers still waiting for armor reimbursements
Pentagon fails to figure out how to pay back troops’ personal expenditures

WASHINGTON - Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.

Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won’t provide. One U.S. senator said Wednesday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he will offer amendments to the defense appropriations bill working its way through Congress, to take the funding issue out of the hands of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and give control to military unit commanders in the field.

“Rumsfeld is violating the law,” Dodd said in an interview with The Associated Press. “It’s been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I’m sorry that’s how they felt.”

Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the department “is in the final stages of putting a reimbursement program together and it is expected to be operating soon.” But defense officials would not discuss the reason for the delay.

Krenke said the Pentagon’s first priority is to ensure that soldiers “have all they need to fight and win this nation’s wars.”

Others don’t see it that way.

'Not good enough'

“Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough,” said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.

The father asked that he be identified only by his first name — Gordon — because he is afraid of retribution against his son.

“I wouldn’t have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it,” said Gordon. “But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don’t support Donald Rumsfeld’s idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don’t go to war until you are prepared.”

Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it “an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden.”

In a letter to Dodd in late April, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel, said his office was developing regulations to implement the reimbursement, and would be done in about 60 days.

'Serious shortages'

Soldiers and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices.

“The bottom line is that Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department are failing soldiers again,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for Iraq veterans.

“It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket,” said Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader with the 3rd Infantry Division and served in Iraq from the invasion in March 2003 to spring 2004. “These are bureaucratic failures, but when they make mistakes like this, guys die. There has been progress made, but we’re still seeing serious shortages.”

Dodd said he is worried the Pentagon will reject most requests for reimbursement. Turning the decision over to the troop commanders will prevent that, he said, because the commanders know what their soldiers need and will make better decisions about what to reimburse.

Dodd also said he wants to eliminate the deadline included in the original law, which allowed soldiers to seek reimbursement for items bought between September 2001 and July 2004. Now, he said, he wants it to be open-ended.

“I’m tired of this, obviously they’re not getting the job done,” said Dodd. “If you have to go out and buy equipment to protect yourself, you’re going to get reimbursed.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9524109/

QUOTE
“It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket,”


QUOTE
“These are bureaucratic failures, but when they make mistakes like this, guys die.


Hmmm. Starting to sound like our very own.

flipzi - September 30, 2005 10:10 AM (GMT)
Magandang pampagaan ng loob para sa ating mga sundalo.

Kitam, maski si Uncle Sam, ungas sa pera? :funnypost:

O ayan mga Pinoy soldiers. Di lang pala kayo tinitipid eh. :armycheers:

saver111 - April 3, 2006 02:31 PM (GMT)
US deserter 'shocked by abuses'

A US soldier who fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq says he was shocked by alleged atrocities committed by the American military.

Josh Key was speaking before Canada's refugee board hearing his asylum plea.

Among the incidents, he described soldiers kicking the severed head of an Iraqi like a football in Ramadi.

Mr Key served as an explosives expert in Iraq for eight months, and deserted to Canada with his family in 2004. He faces a court martial back in the US.

The soldier, 27, also told Canada's refugee board he saw a US army squad leader shooting the foot off an unarmed Iraqi man.

The army's attitude in Iraq was "just shoot and ask questions later", Mr Key said.

Appeal

Mr Key says he refuses to fight in a war he regards as immoral and illegal.

About 20 US soldiers have applied for asylum in Canada. Two have already had their applications rejected.

The Immigration and Refugee Board said it was not convinced the men would face persecution if they were sent back to the US. They have said they will appeal against the decision.

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Key said he was in Iraq when he realised the war was unjustified.

"The only people that were getting hurt was the innocent; that was innocent Iraqi people, as well as innocent soldiers."

On his return to the US, he told the army that he did not want to return, but was advised that he would face prison if he refused. It was then that he decided to desert.

"Before I went to Iraq, I was trained on how to escape terrorists. You learn to only go where crime is already at. You only go somewhere where who cares about a deserter if somebody is getting murdered every night. I went to Philadelphia," he said.

He spent 14 months in the city, before deciding to flee to Canada.

During the Vietnam war, more than 100,000 Americans went to the neighbour country to avoid the draft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4859948.stm

saver111 - May 5, 2007 12:06 PM (GMT)
Study finds lapses in battlefield ethics

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer 34 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.


More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the
Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.

"It is disappointing," said analyst John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think tank. "But anybody who is surprised by it doesn't understand war. ... This is about combat stress."

The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I don't want to, for a minute, second-guess the behavior of any person in the military — look at the kind of moral dilemma you are putting people in," Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, said of the mission in Iraq. "There's a real tension between using too much force, which generally means using force to protect yourself, and using too little and therefore exposing yourself to greater risk."

The overall study was the fourth in a series done by a special mental health advisory team since 2003 aimed at assessing the well-being of forces serving in Iraq.

Officials said the teams visited Iraq last August to October, talking to troops, health care providers and chaplains.

The study team also found that long and repeated deployments were increasing troop mental health problems.

But Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the Army's acting surgeon general, said the team's "most critical" findings were on ethics.

"They looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at," said Ward Casscells, assistant secretary of defense for health.

Findings included:

_Sixty-two percent of soldiers and 66 percent of Marines said that they knew someone seriously injured or killed, or that a member of their team had become a casualty.

_The 2006 adjusted rate of suicides per 100,000 soldiers was 17.3 soldiers, lower than the 19.9 rate reported in 2005.

_Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.

_About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.

_About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.

_Forty-four percent of Marines and 41 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or Marine.

_Thirty-nine percent of Marines and 36 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to gather important information from insurgents.

Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Marine Corps spokesman, said officials were looking closely at the ethics results, taken from a questionnaire survey of 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines.

"The Marine Corps takes this issue of battlefield ethics very seriously," he said. "We are examining the study and its recommendations and we'll find ways to improve our approach."

Pollock said officials concluded from the overall study that "there's a robust system in place to provide mental health care, but issues continue with the stress of a combat deployment."

Based on the findings, officials have revised training programs to focus more on Army values, suicide prevention, battlefield ethics and behavioral health awareness, Pollock said.

The study team said shorter deployments or longer intervals between deployments would give soldiers and Marines a better chance "to reset mentally" before returning to combat. The Pentagon last month announced a policy that extends tours of duty for all active duty Army troops from a year to 15 months. Pollock acknowledged that was "going to be a stress" on troops.

Marine tours are seven months, one likely reason that soldier morale was lower than Marine morale, she said.

Pike contrasted Iraq's campaign to World War I, saying: "The trenches were pretty stressful, but a unit would only be up at the front for a few months and then get rotated to the rear. There's no rear in Iraq; you're subject to combat stress for your entire tour."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070505/ap_on_...tlefield_ethics

edwin - May 6, 2007 12:43 AM (GMT)
A failure in generalship
By Lt. Col. Paul Yingling

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198


Failures of Generalship in Iraq

America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq.

Despite paying lip service to "transformation" throughout the 1990s, America's armed forces failed to change in significant ways after the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In "The Sling and the Stone," T.X. Hammes argues that the Defense Department's transformation strategy focuses almost exclusively on high-technology conventional wars. The doctrine, organizations, equipment and training of the U.S. military confirm this observation. The armed forces fought the global war on terrorism for the first five years with a counterinsurgency doctrine last revised in the Reagan administration. Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems. The most commonly used tactical scenarios in both schools and training centers replicated high-intensity interstate conflict. At the dawn of the 21st century, the U.S. is fighting brutal, adaptive insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, while our armed forces have spent the preceding decade having done little to prepare for such conflicts.

Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle. In 1997, the U.S. Central Command exercise "Desert Crossing" demonstrated that many postwar stabilization tasks would fall to the military. The other branches of the U.S. government lacked sufficient capability to do such work on the scale required in Iraq. Despite these results, CENTCOM accepted the assumption that the State Department would administer postwar Iraq. The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq.

After failing to visualize the conditions of combat in Iraq, America's generals failed to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency theory prescribes providing continuous security to the population.

saver111 - May 18, 2007 12:19 PM (GMT)
States crack down on soldier T-shirts

By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Thu May 17, 4:53 PM ET

PHOENIX - Incensed by the sale of anti-war T-shirts and other paraphernalia emblazoned with the names and pictures of America's military dead, some states are outlawing the commercial use of the fallen without the permission of their families.

Despite serious questions of constitutionality, Oklahoma and Louisiana enacted such laws last year, and the governors of Texas and Florida have legislation waiting on their desks. Arizona lawmakers are on the verge of approving a similar measure.

"You should have some rights to your own name and your own legacy, particularly if you're a deceased veteran," said state Sen. Jim Waring, a Republican who sponsored the Arizona bill. "Celebrities have that. Why shouldn't our soldiers have that?"

The bills were prompted largely by pleas from military families upset that their loved ones' names and photos were being used on phone cards, body armor and other products.

In many cases, the target of their ire is Dan Frazier, a Flagstaff man who sells T-shirts online that list the names of 3,155 U.S. military personnel killed in
Iraq. The shirts bear slogans such as "Bush Lied — They Died" and "Support Our Remaining Troops — Bring the Rest Home Alive."

Margy Bons, a Phoenix-area woman whose Marine reservist son, Sgt. Michael A. Marzano, was killed by an insurgent bomb in Iraq in 2005, said he believed in his mission.

"My son was not duped into going to war," she said. "I'm angry that somebody can use somebody else's name for their political beliefs without permission."

Frazier, 41, said he will not retreat. "I'm providing a valuable service to people to help show the enormity of the cost of war," he said.

Under the Arizona bill, violators could get up to six months in jail and fines of $2,500 for an individual and $20,000 for an enterprise. A spokeswoman for Gov. Janet Napolitano declined to say whether she would sign the bill if it reached her desk.

The Florida bill would impose a $1,000 penalty per violation for using a military member's name or photo commercially without permission.

Law enforcement officials in Oklahoma and Louisiana said they were unaware of any prosecutions under their laws. But the Arizona legislation also authorizes families to sue, and Bons said she will see Frazier in court.

Frazier said he has sold a couple of thousand shirts through his Web site, http://www.carryabigsticker.com, since 2005 and regards it as more of a political statement than a moneymaker. He said the shirts, which sell for $20 to $22, are expensive to produce.

Frazier said the various state bills and laws infringe on his First Amendment rights to free speech.

Waring said Frazier is selling a commercial product, and that opens the door to state regulation.

"This is clearly commercial speech. He's not giving the shirts away," Waring said. "I don't dispute that if he was giving the shirts away to make a political statement, we probably couldn't do anything about that."

However, a constitutional law expert said the fact that the dead soldiers' names are public record and that the Arizona legislation grants exceptions for plays, articles and certain other uses could undermine its constitutionality.

"You can't make some irrational distinctions and stop some people and not others without a really good reason," said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University professor and a top Justice Department official in the Clinton administration.

Bender said the shirts are clearly a political statement: "He's not advertising anything on the T-shirts."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_...b07aqsvrilH2ocA

saver111 - February 26, 2008 06:34 AM (GMT)
When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and DEBORAH SONTAG
Published: February 15, 2008

A few months after Sgt. William Edwards and his wife, Sgt. Erin Edwards, returned to a Texas Army base from separate missions in Iraq, he assaulted her mercilessly. He struck her, choked her, dragged her over a fence and slammed her into the sidewalk.

As far as Erin Edwards was concerned, that would be the last time he beat her.

Unlike many military wives, she knew how to work the system to protect herself. She was an insider, even more so than her husband, since she served as an aide to a brigadier general at Fort Hood.

With the general’s help, she quickly arranged for a future transfer to a base in New York. She pressed charges against her husband and secured an order of protection. She sent her two children to stay with her mother. And she received assurance from her husband’s commanders that he would be barred from leaving the base unless accompanied by an officer.

Yet on the morning of July 22, 2004, William Edwards easily slipped off base, skipping his anger-management class, and drove to his wife’s house in the Texas town of Killeen. He waited for her to step outside and then, after a struggle, shot her point-blank in the head before turning the gun on himself.

During an investigation, Army officers told the local police that they did not realize Erin Edwards had been afraid of her husband. And they acknowledged that despite his restrictions, William Edwards had not been escorted off base “on every occasion,” according to a police report.

That admission troubled the detective handling the case.

“I believe that had he been confined to base and had that confinement been monitored,” said Detective Sharon L. Brank of the local police, “she would not be dead at his hands.”

The killing of Erin Edwards directly echoed an earlier murder of a military wife that drew far more attention. Almost 10 years ago, at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a different Army sergeant defied a similar restriction to base, driving out the front gate on his way to a murder almost foretold.

That 1998 homicide, one of several featured in a “60 Minutes” exposé on domestic violence in the military, galvanized a public outcry, Congressional demands for action and the Pentagon’s pledge to do everything possible to prevent such violence from claiming more lives.

Yet just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began.

Pentagon officials say that wartime has not derailed their efforts to make substantive improvements in the way that the military tackles domestic violence.

They say they have, for example, offered more parenting and couples classes, provided additional victims advocates and afforded victims greater confidentiality in reporting abuses.

But interviews with members of the task force, as well as an examination of cases of fatal domestic violence and child abuse, indicate that wartime pressures on military families and on the military itself have complicated the Pentagon’s efforts.

“I don’t think there is any question about that,” said Peter C. McDonald, a retired district court judge in Kentucky and a member of the Pentagon’s now disbanded domestic violence task force. “The war could only make things much worse than even before, and here we had a system that was not too good to begin with.”

Connie Sponsler-Garcia, another task force member, who now works on domestic violence projects with the Pentagon, agreed.

“Whereas something was a high priority before, now it’s: ‘Oh, dear, we have a war. Well get back to you in a few months,’ ” she said.

The fatalities examined by The New York Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence.

According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes.

Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law.

Take the case of Sgt. Jared Terrasas. The first time that he was deployed to Iraq, his prosecution for domestic violence was delayed. Then, after pleading guilty, he was pulled out of a 16-week batterers intervention program run by the Marine Corps and sent to Iraq again.

Several months after Sergeant Terrasas returned home, his 7-month-old son died of a brain injury, and the marine was charged with his murder.

Deployment to war, with its long separations, can put serious stress on military families. And studies have shown that recurrent deployments heighten the likelihood of combat trauma, which, in turn, increases the risk of domestic violence.

“The more trauma out there, the more likely domestic violence is,” said Dr. Jacquelyn C. Campbell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing who also was a member of the Pentagon task force.

The Times examined several cases in which mental health problems caused or exacerbated by war pushed already troubled families to a deadly breaking point.

In one instance, the Air Force repeatedly deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere Sgt. Jon Trevino, a medic with a history of psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Multiple deployments eroded Sergeant Trevino’s marriage and worsened his mental health problems until, in 2006, he killed his wife, Carol, and then himself.

The military declared his suicide “service related.”

A Call to Action

Within a six-week period in 2002, three Special Forces sergeants returned from Afghanistan and murdered their wives at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Two immediately turned their guns on themselves; the third hanged himself in a jail cell. A fourth soldier at the same Army base also killed his wife during those six weeks.

At the beginning of this wartime period, the cluster of murder-suicides set off alarms about the possible link between combat tours and domestic violence, a link supported by a study published that year in the journal Military Medicine. The killings also reinvigorated the concerns about military domestic violence that had led to the formation of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence two years earlier.

National attention to the subject was short-lived. But an examination by The Times found more than 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or child abuse in the United States involving service members and new veterans during the wartime period that began in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan.

In more than a third of the cases, The Times determined that the offenders had deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq or to the regions in support of those missions. In another third, it determined that the offenders never deployed to war. And the deployment history of the final third could not be ascertained.

The military tracks only homicides that it prosecutes, and a majority of killings involving service members are handled by civilian authorities. To track these cases, The Times used records from the Army, Air Force and Navy — the Marines did not provide any information —and local news reports.

It is difficult to know how complete The Times’s findings are. What is clear, though, is that these homicides occurred at a time when the military was trying to improve its handling of domestic violence.

The Pentagon’s domestic violence task force, appointed in April 2000 and comprising 24 military and civilian experts, met regularly for three years to examine a system where, they found, soldiers rarely faced punishment or prosecution for battering their wives and where they often found shelter from civilian orders of protection.

When the moment arrived to explain their findings and recommendations to Congress, however, the timing could not have been poorer. Deborah D. Tucker and Lt. Gen. Garry L. Parks of the Marines, the leaders of the task force, presented their final report to the House Armed Services Committee on the very day that the Iraq war began, March 20, 2003. Ms. Tucker called it “one of the more surreal experiences of my life.”

“Periodically, members of the committee would call for a break and there would be some updated information provided on the status of our troops’ entry into Iraq and how far they’d gotten,” she said. “There was a map on an easel to the side.”

“I knew that while we were at war all other considerations would push back,” she added, “and I hoped that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a quick matter on the order of Desert Storm.”

The task force was disbanded, and its request to reconvene after two years to evaluate progress was rejected. But the Defense Department embraced most of its 200 recommendations and gradually made many changes, from the increase in advocates to domestic violence training for commanding officers.

“The services have taken huge strides to implement the recommendations,” said David Lloyd, director of the Pentagon’s Family Advocacy Program, starting with sending out “a strong message across the department that domestic violence is not acceptable.”

Further, after the killings at Fort Bragg, Congress passed a law that made civilian orders of protection binding on military bases, and the Army gradually slowed the transition from war to home to help soldiers adjust.

Mr. Lloyd said he could not verify or comment on The Times’s findings on domestic killings. But, he said, domestic fatalities do not provide a complete picture of the incidence of domestic violence in the military.

“You have a pie, a nine-inch shell, and you have a slice of that pie, but there are other slices: verbal abuse and psychological control and assault that didn’t result in a homicide,” Mr. Lloyd said. “Even if the fatality slice has increased and it would look larger, the other numbers have gone down.”

According to the military, the number of general spouse and child abuse incidents reported to on-base family advocacy programs began declining in 1998, before the special effort to address the issue began, and continued to decline significantly through 2006. But whether those numbers reflect a genuine decline is a matter of debate, given that large numbers of service members have spent considerable time away on deployments and that the strengthening of sanctions for domestic violence has made some women more reluctant to report abuse.

The accuracy of the military’s domestic violence data has also been questioned, by advocates, the Government Accountability Office and military officials themselves.

Last fall, in a statement released during domestic violence awareness month, Mike Hoskins, a Pentagon official, said, “We shouldn’t necessarily take comfort in reduced rates of violence.” He said they probably reflected “good news” but urged caution in interpreting the numbers.

Dr. Campbell, the former task force member, said the task force had recommended periodic anonymous surveys to ascertain the full extent of domestic violence. She also said that she believed the “true incidence” of domestic violence had probably increased as a result of service members returning from Iraq with combat trauma, which can exacerbate family violence.

“It’s sort of like, on the one hand, they’re improving the system, and on the other hand, they’re stressing it,” she said.

Others agree, noting that wartime places a burden on the military as a whole, even on those who do not deploy to combat zones but absorb additional duties at home.

Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which provides domestic violence assistance mostly to the wives of officers and senior enlisted men, said the organization’s caseload had tripled since the war in Iraq began.

And John P. Galligan, a retired Army colonel who served as a military judge at Fort Hood and now represents military clients in private practice, said he, too, had seen a “substantial” increase in military domestic violence cases in his area.

“Sometimes I just sit and scratch my head,” he said.

The separation of deployment, in and of itself, often causes marital strains.

“Even with a healthy marriage, there is a massive adjustment,” said Anita Gorecki, a lawyer and former Army captain who represents soldiers near Fort Bragg and is married to an officer currently in Iraq. “Add on to that combat stress and injuries and sometimes it can create the perfect storm.”

Some researchers draw a fairly firm connection between post-traumatic stress disorder and domestic violence. A 2006 study in The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy looked at veterans who sought marital counseling at a Veterans Affairs medical center in the Midwest between 1997 and 2003. Those given a diagnosis of PTSD were “significantly more likely to perpetrate violence toward their partners,” the study found, with more than 80 percent committing at least one act of violence in the previous year, and almost half at least one severe act.

Pamela Iles, a superior court judge who was permitted by the Marines to set up a privately financed domestic violence education program at Camp Pendleton in California, views much of the domestic abuse on the base as “collateral” from the war. She sees the domestic violence committed by marines, many of them young, as a reaction to jumping back and forth between the dangers of war and the trouble at home.

“One minute you are in Baghdad waiting for a bomb to go off and the next minute you are in Burger King,” Judge Iles said. “There is a lot of disorientation.”

A 9-Year-Old Witness

It was a little before dawn on Feb. 20, 2006, in a bedroom in Edwardsville, Ill. Carol Trevino and her 9-year-old son, sleeping deeply after watching “Wayne’s World,” were startled awake by a series of booms. “What was that?” Carol Trevino asked her son.

In seconds, Sgt. Jon Trevino, her estranged husband, barged through the door, according to a police report. Mrs. Trevino had just enough time to reach for her pepper spray before he shot her five times, the last time in the head. Then he shot himself.

Their son, wide-eyed, sat in bed watching his life explode, bullet by bullet.

Few details escaped the boy’s notice. His father used a silver gun and it “didn’t have a wheel on it, like the cowboys used,” he told the Edwardsville police. The boy could even name the precise time of his mother’s death: 4:32 a.m., as the glowing clock read.

Outside in Mr. Trevino’s car was the immediate motive for the murder-suicide: divorce papers, evidence of a marriage destabilized by multiple deployments to war zones and by Sergeant Trevino’s own increasing instability.

T. Robert Cook, his brother-in-law, said he believed Sergeant Trevino’s domestic violence was triggered by his combat trauma. “I’m 100 percent sure it was the war,” said Mr. Cook, who is raising the Trevinos’ son along with his wife, Cheryl Lee, who is Carol’s sister. “I don’t have any doubt their marital problems placed a burden on him, but I am quite sure that, but for the war, he would have taken a different approach. When you see people being shot every day, death is not a big thing.”

Sergeant Trevino, who had endured childhood sexual abuse and a difficult first marriage, suffered psychiatric problems long before he was dispatched to war zones to perform the highly stressful job of evacuating the wounded.

And the Air Force knew it.

Air Force mental health records show that Sergeant Trevino, who was 36, had been treated twice for mental health problems before the war: once in 1995 for serious depression as his first marriage crumbled, and then in 1999 for post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the childhood abuse and marital problems with his new wife, Carol. He was counseled and treated with medication both times.

As a result of these problems, the Air Force insisted that he secure a medical waiver for a promotion that he sought to become an aeromedical evacuation technician. And military doctors certified that he could handle the job, despite research that shows that pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder is exacerbated in a war zone.

Col. Steven Pflanz, a senior psychiatrist in the Air Force, who was not involved in the Trevino case, said the Air Force considered the stress disorder to be treatable and therefore was willing to deploy an airman with a history of it. But the decision is not taken lightly, he said.

“It’s not an exact science,” he said. “You try to make your best prediction. We spend a lot of time with our customers.”

In Sergeant Trevino’s case, the prediction was wrong. He had trouble shaking off the carnage that he experienced so viscerally while evacuating injured service members. After one deployment to Afghanistan and two to Iraq, his mental health and his marriage deteriorated. When he returned from his second tour in Iraq, Sergeant Trevino acknowledged in a health assessment that he had “serious problems” dealing with the people he loved and that he was feeling “down, helpless, panicky or anxious.”

The Air Force acted quickly. He was abruptly restricted from “special operational duty.” An Air Force doctor diagnosed “acute PTSD,” calling it a reaction to the war and marital problems. Sergeant Trevino began taking a cocktail of antidepressants and underwent therapy. According to doctors’ notes, he did not express thoughts of homicide or suicide. By the time Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in August 2005, he was considered well enough to be deployed domestically.

But his wife’s family, which had taken him under its wing, found the once affable, quick-witted sergeant to be profoundly altered. His temper flashed unpredictably, white-hot. He acted threatened and paranoid, his behavior so erratic that he frightened his son. One late night, he took his son on a rambling drive to nowhere, ranting to the boy about his mother.

At least one time, he struck his wife. A friend gave Carol Trevino the pepper spray that she reached for the night of her murder. But she never considered his abuse serious enough to report him to the authorities.

Four days before the murder-suicide, Sergeant Trevino bought a gun.

“This is just one of those things that unfortunately happens,” he wrote to his son in a suicide note. “I love you, and I know I let you down.”

Justice Delayed

The Pentagon task force had one overarching recommendation: that the military work hard to effect a “culture shift” to zero tolerance for domestic violence by holding offenders accountable and by punishing criminal behavior.

There was, members believed, a core credo that needed to be attacked frontally: “this notion that the good soldier either can’t be a wife beater or, if they are, that it’s a temporary aberration that shouldn’t interfere with them doing military service,” as Dr. Campbell put it.

The way the military handled several cases involving the deaths of babies and toddlers indicates that this kind of thinking has been difficult to demolish at a time of war.

In October 2003, four months after Jose Aguilar, 24, a Marine Corps sergeant, returned from the initial invasion of Iraq, his infant son, Damien, wound up in the intensive care unit of a local hospital with bleeding in his brain and eyes.

Sergeant Aguilar, a mechanic based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, acknowledged to the local police that he had been rough with the 2-month-old baby, shaking Damien to stop him from squirming during a diaper change. He said that he had been abused himself as a child and that he did not mean to hurt the baby.

After the marine was charged with felony child abuse, he and his wife completed a parenting program.

The following summer, while the felony charge was pending, Sergeant Aguilar was deployed once more to Iraq, this time for nine months. His court case was delayed, which did not surprise local prosecutors.

Michael Maultsby, the assistant district attorney in Onslow County, N.C., who prosecuted Sergeant Aguilar, said that such frustrating delays in justice sometimes occur in his county, home to Camp Lejeune.

“It depends on the needs of the unit,” Mr. Maultsby said. “We can’t overrule them.”

In April 2006, a year after Sergeant Aguilar returned from Iraq but before his felony case was resolved, Damien, who by then was 2, died of a brain injury. His father claimed that the boy had been injured by a fall in the bathtub. The medical examiner disputed that explanation. The marine was arrested, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and felony child abuse, and was sentenced last fall to 28 to 35 years in prison.

Marine officials would not comment on individual cases. Elaine Woodhouse, a Marine Corps social services program specialist, said that “the family advocacy program does not recommend or advise deployment of a marine when domestic or felony child abuse charges are pending.” Still, that decision, she said, is left to the discretion of the commanders.

A conviction for domestic violence, unlike pending charges, almost always renders a service member ineligible to go to war, but that restriction has not always been considered binding, as is clear in the case of Sergeant Terrasas, who was stationed at Camp Pendleton.

One night in late December 2002, Sergeant Terrasas, drunk and angry over a telephone conversation about the looming war in Iraq, vented his anger by punching his wife, Lucia, in the face.

“He seemed to just lose it,” Mrs. Terrasas told the police in Oceanside, Calif., who arrested him on misdemeanor charges.

But Sergeant Terrasas was deployed to Iraq before his case was heard. It was not until his return seven months later that he pleaded guilty, was placed on probation and was ordered to complete a 16-week batterers intervention program run by the Marine Corps.

Sergeant Terrasas attended a few classes. But the Marine Corps, facing a runaway insurgency in Iraq, pulled him out of the batterers program and shipped him off to war for a second time in early 2004.

This deployment was illegal. A 1996 law bans offenders who are convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from carrying firearms, with no special exception for military personnel. The ban is referred to as the Lautenberg amendment after its sponsor, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.

Army and Marine regulations, formulated in response to the weapons ban, explicitly prohibit deployments for missions that require firearms, and extend the policy to felony domestic violence offenders, too. The Marine Corps would not comment on Sergeant Terrasas’s deployment, citing confidentiality rules.

When Sergeant Terrasas returned from war, he completed his batterers program, said his lawyer, Philip De Massa. But his anger, tested by two tours in Iraq, still surfaced. In September 2005, when the police responded to a domestic argument, he broke down crying and told one officer that he suffered from “postwar traumatic syndrome.” There is no record that he sought or received mental health help.

Nearly two weeks later, the Terrasases’ 7-month-old son, Alexander, died from a powerful blow to the head. Mr. Terrasas was charged with murder. Last August, after a deal with prosecutors, he was sentenced to seven years in prison for felony child endangerment.

He never admitted to abusing his child.

Broken Promises

Sgt. Erin Edwards, emboldened by a year in Iraq, returned to Texas with the courage to end her troubled marriage.

“Being apart for such a long period of time enabled her to realize she could survive without him,” said Sgt. Jami Howell, 28, who was her best friend.

When Erin Edwards told her husband that she wanted a divorce after four years of marriage, he responded as she had long feared.

On June 19, 2004, he followed her to their baby sitter’s house to hand her a written proposal for a custody arrangement. When she did not immediately respond, he beat her so badly that she wound up in the emergency room.

Even before the assault, William Edwards’s troubles had so badly affected his performance at work that his commanding officer, Capt. Brian Novoselich, took the time to meet with him weekly to check on his welfare. After the assault, it was the captain who confined him to the base.

But William Edwards repeatedly left unescorted and often stayed with his brother, who lived across the street from Erin Edwards in Killeen. On several occasions, she alerted the police and his superiors that he was lurking.

On July 21, 2004, Erin Edwards went to court to make the temporary protection order permanent. At the hearing, William Edwards told the judge that he had enrolled in alcohol and domestic violence classes after the June assault, according to a transcript.

“I had hit rock bottom when I touched my wife, man,” he said in court. “That was the worst day ever in my life. I had always told my wife that I would never touch her, ever, physically.”

William Edwards also acknowledged that when the police showed up that day, he begged his wife not to press charges, saying: “Don’t do this to my career. Don’t do this.”

Erin Edwards spoke of the effect on their children, who witnessed the assault. “Since the incident happened, all my son talks about is how his father hurt his mother, and that ‘Daddy is going to kill Mommy,’” she said.

She also stated, and her husband learned for the first time, that she was transferring and moving with the children. William Edwards was “visibly upset” by this, according to Army documents turned over to the police.

The following morning, after reporting to an exercise session with other soldiers, William Edwards left the base alone one final time. After the murder-suicide, local police officers securing the scene noted that both bodies were dressed in military camouflage clothing with nameplates that said Edwards. Both were 24.

At Erin Edwards’s funeral, her boss, Brig. Gen. Charles Benjamin Allen, who was killed in a helicopter crash in late 2004, eulogized the soldier with a cracking voice. More than three years later, her relatives note that not even he, with his high rank, was able to ensure that the military was doing more than taking a troubled soldier “at his word,” as Mary Lou Taylor, Erin’s aunt, said.

“He couldn’t or failed to help her be safe,” Ms. Taylor said.

William Edwards’s former commanding officer, Major Novoselich, said in a recent interview that he was “shocked by the end result.” Now a professor at West Point, he said he had assumed that William Edwards’s immediate supervisors were monitoring him.

Near Fort Hood, Detective Brank of the Killeen police said soldiers continued to defy restrictions to the base.

“I am surprised,” she said. “Fort Hood is not enforcing these orders.”

The Army examined Erin Edwards’s death as part of a fatality review program recommended by the Pentagon task force “to ensure no victim dies in vain.”

A one-paragraph summary of the review seemed to discount the findings of the civilian police investigation. The summary noted that Erin Edwards had refused the assistance of the base’s family advocacy program, while William Edwards had enrolled in it. It added that William Edwards had “appeared to comply” with his restrictions. Until the day he “eluded his military escort” and killed his wife.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/15vet...ref=todayspaper

saver111 - March 11, 2008 05:17 AM (GMT)
Gulf War syndrome firmly linked to chemical exposure

CHICAGO (AFP) - Nearly two decades after veterans of the 1991 Gulf War came home complaining of odd illnesses, enough evidence has been gathered to determine that many of them were sickened by chemical exposure, a study has concluded.

And ome of the damage was likely caused by pills prescribed to protect against the use of nerve gas and pesticides used to control sand flies, according to the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

While the military has subsequently stopped using the pills, the pesticides continue to be used in agriculture and for pest control in homes and offices in the United States and around the globe.

"Enough studies have been conducted, and results shared, to be able to say with considerable confidence that there is a link between chemical exposure and chronic, multi-symptom health problems," said study author Beatrice Golomb of the University of California San Diego's school of medicine.

"Furthermore, the same chemicals affecting Gulf War veterans may be involved in similar cases of unexplained, multi-symptom health problems in the general population."

Golomb examined the results of scores of studies looking at the health impact of the class of chemicals to which the veterans were exposed either through pesticides, the anti-nerve gas pills or the demolition of a weapons depot containing the nerve gas sarin.

Her study linked exposure to the chemicals to Gulf War syndrome, a chronic health problem which affected between 26 and 32 percent of deployed troops.

Symptoms routinely reported by these veterans include memory problems, trouble sleeping, muscle or joint pain, fatigue, rashes and breathing problems.

While the findings "do not imply that all illness in Gulf War veterans" is the result of this exposure it "may account for some or perhaps much of the excess illness seen in Gulf War veterans" she concluded.

Golomb also discovered why some veterans were sickened while others with equal or greater chemical exposure were not affected.

"There is evidence that genetics have something to do with how a body handles exposure to these chemicals," Golomb said.

"Some people are genetically less able to withstand these toxins and evidence shows that these individuals have higher chance of suffering the effects of exposure."

Some 250,000 service members were given the bromide pills as a preventative measure. Those with the mutations that reduced their ability to detoxify the pills were at significantly higher risk of illness, Golomb found.

Previous studies have shown that this mutation is also linked to increased rates of some neurological diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease.


http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080311/afp/080311024540top.html

saver111 - April 1, 2008 04:34 AM (GMT)
Rapists in the ranks

Sexual assaults are frequent, and frequently ignored, in the armed services.

By Jane Harman
March 31, 2008

The stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality: A female military recruit is pinned down at knifepoint and raped repeatedly in her own barracks. Her attackers hid their faces but she identified them by their uniforms; they were her fellow soldiers. During a routine gynecological exam, a female soldier is attacked and raped by her military physician. Yet another young soldier, still adapting to life in a war zone, is raped by her commanding officer. Afraid for her standing in her unit, she feels she has nowhere to turn.

These are true stories, and, sadly, not isolated incidents. Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken.

Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show a sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were reported -- 73% more than in 2004. The DOD's newest report, released this month, indicates that 2,688 reports were made in 2007, but a recent shift from calendar-year reporting to fiscal-year reporting makes comparisons with data from previous years much more difficult.

The Defense Department has made some efforts to manage this epidemic -- most notably in 2005, after the media received anonymous e-mail messages about sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy. The media scrutiny and congressional attention that followed led the DOD to create the Sexual Assault and Response Office. Since its inception, the office has initiated education and training programs, which have improved the reporting of cases of rapes and other sexual assaults. But more must be done to prevent attacks and to increase accountability.

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was because of "insufficient evidence."

This is in stark contrast to the civilian trend of prosecuting sexual assault. In California, for example, 44% of reported rapes result in arrests, and 64% of those who are arrested are prosecuted, according to the California Department of Justice.

The DOD must close this gap and remove the obstacles to effective investigation and prosecution. Failure to do so produces two harmful consequences: It deters victims from reporting, and it fails to deter offenders. The absence of rigorous prosecution perpetuates a culture tolerant of sexual assault -- an attitude that says "boys will be boys."

I have raised the issue with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Although I believe that he is concerned, thus far, the military's response has been underwhelming -- and the apparent lack of urgency is inexcusable.

Congress is not doing much better. Although these sexual assault statistics are readily available, our oversight has failed to come to grips with the magnitude of the crisis. The abhorrent and graphic nature of the reports may make people uncomfortable, but that is no excuse for inaction. Congressional hearings are urgently needed to highlight the failure of existing policies. Most of our servicewomen and men are patriotic, courageous and hardworking people who embody the best of what it means to be an American. The failure to address military sexual assault runs counter to those ideals and shames us all.

Jane Harman (D-Venice) chairs the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,2627231.story



Hosted for free by InvisionFree