The Gulf War of 1991 often goes with little mention when there is talk of the costs of war on U.S. troops.  There were 148 combat-related deaths as a result of the Gulf War out of the 700,000 troops involved in the conflict.

However, approximately 25-30% of the vets of that war have been diagnosed with what has been called “Gulf War Disease”.  And while Gulf War Disease has long been thought to be a psychosomatic disorder, a recent report based on extensive studies are now showing that there are in fact very real, very physical causes for the disorder.  Lea Steele is the scientific director of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, which issued the report, and an associate professor at Kansas State University.  She had this to say:

“When you put all the evidence together there are two chemicals that jump out as the main causes,” she said. One is a drug called pyridostigmine bromide, which is a cholinesterase inhibitor that was given to the troops to protect them against nerve gas.

“It turns out that people who took those pills have a higher rate of Gulf War illness,” Steele said. “And people who took more pills have even higher rates of Gulf War illness.”

In addition, soldiers were exposed to pesticides that were also cholinesterase inhibitors, Steele said. “The strongest evidence points to pyridostigmine bromide and pesticides as causal factors,” she said. “This type of illness has not been seen after other wars.”

The panel also found government research and funding into Gulf War illness wanting. “There has not been sufficient attention given to Gulf War illness. It’s a real problem,” Steele said.

“In recent years, both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have reported a lot of studies that weren’t Gulf War illness as Gulf War research,” Steele added. “Some of the money was misused.”

The panel noted that overall federal funding for Gulf War research has declined substantially in recent years; the group urged lawmakers to devote $60 million annually to such programs.

When veterans with Gulf War illness go to Veterans Administration hospitals for treatment, their problems often aren’t taken seriously, Steele said. “VA docs often know nothing about it and aren’t able to help them. Sometimes they treat them as if they are head cases or malingering,” she said.

James Binns is chairman of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses.

“We have no treatments that work,” said Binns, a Vietnam veteran and former Pentagon official. “I would like to see the new administration take this more seriously. When you look at all the studies, it’s as clear as the nose on your face that this [Gulf War illness] is real.”

It took 20 years to admit that Agent Orange, a defoliant used in the Vietnam war, caused illness, Binns said. “It’s now coming up to 17 years on Gulf War illness,” he said. “Troop exposures [to these chemicals] were a serious but honest mistake. Covering it up rather than trying to help them has been unconscionable.”

Hopefully with this new report, more attention can be given to the men and women suffering as a result of the unfortunate exposures they received, and an adequate treatment discovered.

Just a quick note to remember the sacrifices made by all the men and women of the military.  The years given up- spend away from families and friends.  The lives lost in service of our country.  The difficulties that come from having known war, even after the days of fighting have passed.

Hearts and thoughts go out to each and every one of you, our brothers and sisters, for having been there and knowing what so few will ever know.  Today is for you.

There have been plenty of movies released in the past few years relating to the wars in the Middle East, from the recently released “Stop Loss” and ”Home of the Brave” for fictional accounts of what war and homecomings carry for our troops, to “Baghdad ER”, “Body of War”, and “No End in Sight” for documentaries ranging from the direct experiences of the men and women of the military, to the policies and backroom dealings that have occured throughout the entirety of the war.

…and people have been avoiding them all like the plague.  Even the ones that recieved positive reviews.

I’m not going to speculate on why these have all pretty much gone unseen, instead I’m going to highlight a few things that are being shown right now that should be viewed.

The first is “Generation Kill”.  A mini-series on HBO based on the book of the same name in which an embedded reporter joins a group of Marines during the initial invasion of Baghdad and documents his experiences.  The book drew some heat on initial release due to the Marines’ outspoken displeasure with their leadership in some instances, but since has been placed as one of the books that “gets” what war is like for the guys on the ground.  The series in being touted as staying close to it’s source material and being fair in it’s depictions of the individuals portrayed in both the book and the show.

The second thing that’s being worked on right now comes courtesy of MTV (who also produced “Stop Loss” which many said was one of the least politicized takes on the war in movies to date) and rapper Kanye West, called “Choose or Lose & Kanye West present: Homecoming”.  The intent of the series is to highlight recently returned vets by sitting down with them and letting them discuss the difficulties faced in returning home.  An extra step being taken in this show is the assistance being given by West and MTV under the name of the Dr. Donda West Foundation (named for West’s recently departed mother) to the vets in the form of student loan repayment, rent coverage, and making up the differences between college costs and the coverage of the G.I. Bill which in certain instances has proven insufficient.

I’ve mocked Kanye West in the past for his lack of internal censor and his outspoken statements (Bush doesn’t care about black people ring a bell?  Not that I’m saying he was wrong, just that his delivery could use some work), but I have to say I think if handled correctly this could be a wonderful program, both to view, and for those it will help.

So there you go, things to watch out for while flipping the channels at home.

When the GI Bill was initiated 64 years ago on this day- June 22nd, 1944 it was used as a means to help soldiers returning from WW2 regain a foothold in their civilian lives after being away while the world around them kept spinning.  Women had taken to the work force, the economy had shifted to building the tools of war, and after the last war the U.S. had fallen into a depression- and that was expected to be the case here as well.  But FDR, Congress, and the American Legion had enough forethought to prevent the predicted hard times.  By installing the GI Bill, returning troops were able to seek out education and find a foothold in a business world that would be developing anew.

Peter Gaytan is director of veteran’s affairs for the American Legion. He says the bill’s humble origins on a sheet of hotel stationery belie its radical premise:

“We didn’t wanna just create legislation that would write a monthly check to a veteran who returned from combat. We recognized that they needed a transition into a life, not a payment for service. What the GI Bill originally did was allow them to go to school, to purchase their home, to become part of the work force when they took the uniform off.”

Up to that time, America had a lousy track record when it came to taking care of its veterans. Even after the Revolutionary War, vets had to storm Independence Hall in Philadelphia to demand payment they’d been promised.

In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, World War I vets marched on the Capitol demanding compensation owed to them. Government troops were called in to disperse them by force.

It was a bleak chapter in American history – and the GI Bill was intended to make sure it would not be repeated.

But today the GI Bill has been having difficulty keeping up with the ever increasing costs of education, especially in an environment where a 4 year degree now holds roughly the same place that a high school education did decades ago, and even more education is required to gain ground in a competitive business world.  So what does a country do to continue showing it’s gratitude and support to the men and women who fight in it’s service?  The obvious answer would be to bring the bill up to speed and modernize it to match the changing educational environment.  But how to go about this change is tricky at best, especially in a politically charged, heavily bipartisan election year.  The Dems and Reps have cut each other down on anything they can, regardless of the obvious benefits to the country and it’s citizens, and the GI Bill has not been spared this crossfire.

A revision to the bill proposed by veteran and Democratic senator James Webb met heavy resistance from Rep Presidential Candidate John McCain and current President George W. Bush.  Their criticisms were primarily focused on the argument that in today’s military- offering increased benefits for opportunities apart from the military, would cause a drop in retention, something today’s military is already struggling with given the numerous deployments faced in this unpopular period of war.  However as members of Congress from both sides began to come out in support of the bill which would increase the benefits afforded to National Guard soldiers who have been carrying an increased burden in current conflicts, increase the time available to use the financial support from 10 to 15 years, and as an added benefit not in the original proposition of the bill, troops will now be able to transfer their tuition to their spouses or children to attend college- a benefit looked very favorably upon given the heavy load military families have been facing as their loved ones ship out on multiple deployments, Bush and McCain have changed their tune to one of support, while still maintaining some criticisms, and in some views even trying to take credit for parts of the bill. 

Regardless of how the bill has come to fruition, the important thing to do is remember that it’s not about something for nothing as I’ve heard some argue.  It’s not even about joining the military just so you can go to college, as many recruiters would use it.  Having gone into military life and come back to the civilian world (and back and forth again a few times) I can now speak to what these benefits are really about- trying to help our fighting men and women make the long, difficult transition back into the American workforce, and society as a whole.  After all they’ve done for us, they deserve all the help we can give them in return.

It would be unfortunate for us to say nothing here as Memorial Day arrives this year.
But while I know I can’t say nothing, I also can’t think of anything I should say.

From wikipedia.org:

Memorial Day is a United States Federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (in 2008 on May 26). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War, it was expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action.

In this day and age it is near impossible to know someone who has not had their lives touched by war in some fashion or another, grand-parents, parents, aunts and uncles, peers, and even now our children have lived in wartime.  There’s a war continuing to this day and for the foreseeable future and beyond. 

People I went to school with in high school have gone on to join the armed forces as I did, and some have not come home after tours of duty, and I think- there but by the grace go I.  My unit did not suffer any casualties while we were deployed, though our sister unit did. 

As the day goes on, and the flags wave, and people barbecue in backyards to celebrate the 3 day weekend and the changing weather, the parades march by, and inevitably “Taps” will play at a nearby cemetery- take a moment to ponder the sacrifices made, for whatever the reason that they joined, whatever the reason that they fought, take that moment and be thankful.  Thankful that there are those who will serve and die for a country that often forgets, thankful for the life that you live and each breath taken so often for granted by us all.  Be thankful, and honor the memories of those who have gone before, and sorrowful of the thought of those who will go after.

My thoughts go out to all.

As if we needed further proof of the Bush administration’s unpopularity:

Twenty-five Republican senators broke with President Bush and voted Thursday for a major expansion of veterans’ benefits as part of a bill to finance another year of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal, adopted by a vote of 75 to 22, also provides money for extended unemployment insurance benefits and other domestic programs to which Mr. Bush has objected.

Some can argue that those 25 Republican senators crossed party lines to vote in favor of next years war funding. The veterans’ benefits and domestic programs were piggy backed on the same vote. An old trick to get the parties to unite.

The Reps get what they want (more money siphoned into our Middle Easter quagmire) and the Dems get what they want (domestic and veteran programs to boast the home front).

Everyone wins except the Bush administration.  I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of seeing his name smeared.

On Thursday the House shocked everyone- including itself, with it’s votes on a 3-part war funding bill.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan’s undoing. Rather than go along, 131 House Republicans voted “present” on the war funding provision, saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to play along.

Reps say their action is a boycott of shady Dem dealings, Dems say the Reps had a choice between funding the war, or not funding it, and they chose to wash their hands of it altogether.

(T)he impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White House. The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill’s $52 billion expansion of veterans’ education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Basically as it stands, rather than continue to flush money in a situation that taxes our country’s resources and money more than we can afford, this bill will improve scholastic options for troops who have served, begin bringing the troops home as well as giving them more time off inbetween deployments to recouperate, and make the Iraqi gov’t begin to pull it’s actual fair share of the load. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but of course reasonable dealings have never been the current admin’s strong point, as evidenced by the fact that the White House has promised to veto this thing to death should it even reach their door.

And while the improvement of educational benefits to the troops sounds like something anyone, regardless of political affiliation could get behind- leave it to Prez hopeful John McCain to try to use it as a tool for keeping the troops in the military (which in turn makes it all the more difficult to use the benefits to get to college, because, you know- deployments tend to make it hard to get to get to class on time).

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain’s efforts have run into bipartisan opposition — from lawmakers, veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb’s measure yesterday.

“I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can’t figure out where he is right now,” said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. “It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, ‘We do not value you unless you reenlist.’ That wasn’t the contract they signed.”

But no matter what happened in the House, expect the Senate to sink the whole thing and bring it right back to war spending where this gov’t seems to think it belongs.

Who knew? There are no people who deserve our respect and care more than the families and friends of the deceased, regardless of the cause of their demise, and many would argue that’s it’s an even truer case to the families and friends of those who died while in service to their country. But for some unlucky number- the utmost care was not taken to ensure the proper somber note when our fallen brothers and sisters were cremated-

The U.S. military has, since 2001, cremated some of the remains of U.S. service members killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in a Delaware facility that also cremates pets, a practice that ended Friday when the Pentagon banned the arrangement.

The facility, in an industrial park near Dover Air Force Base, has cremated about 200 service members, manager David Bose said Friday night. It uses separate crematories a few feet apart to cremate humans and animals, he added.

According to reports no one is sure how many service members were cremated at the Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service, and there’s no evidence that would show any service member having been cremated in the animal crematory, however, the real issue stemmed not from which crematory was used, but from the feelings of shock and dismay caused in those who went to oversee the procedure, saying farewell to their loved ones.

The revelation came to light when an Army officer who works at the Pentagon traveled to Delaware on Thursday to attend the cremation of a military comrade.

Offended to discover that the facility was labeled as a pet crematory, the officer sent an e-mail late Thursday to superiors at the Pentagon that included a photograph of the signage.

It soon rocketed to the attention of (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates, who directed David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, to conduct “a comprehensive review of existing DOD policies and practices governing the cremation and handling of remains of U.S. service members,” (Pentagon press secretary Geoff) Morrell said.

As a result, in 2001 Air Force officials contracted with two local funeral homes to perform cremations, including with Torbert Funeral Chapels and Crematories, which oversees the facility managed by Bose, and another crematory that is located with a funeral home.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne directed Friday that the service “cease using the off-site crematory, use only crematory facilities that are co-located with licensed funeral homes, and have a military presence during the off-base process at the funeral-home facilities,” Morrell said.

Why it would’ve taken this 6-7 years for all of this to become an issue is debatable- is it really so bad that they were being cremated at this facility, given that they were cremated in proper human crematories with no signs of foul play, and if so… why did no one say anything until now? Was this just one man’s over-reaction? Or is it as deeply disrespectful as it sounds to find out that the very people we’re supposed to be honoring and holding in the highest regards are being cared for after death in a facility called Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service?

In my opinion the military should have known better than to outsource to this facility, when obviously as they’re using now- there were more traditional and fitting arrangements that could’ve been made. Odds are, when this service began, it was cheaper and easier than going to a traditional funeral home facility. But this is one place where surely Uncle Sam can afford not to be a miser.

erm… Make that Capital Hill.  Well, in a roundabout way.  They’re starting in California.

On Monday Vets of OIF, OEF, and other U.S. wars will be heading to federal court after filing a lawsuit that states they have not been receiving proper medical care since they’re deployments.

The lawsuit before a judge in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was unable to deal with the growing number of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, cases emerging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system and other social services in our communities,” the suit said.

Some of those in the suit say they have suffered from PTSD for many years, even before the most recent wars highlighted the fate of many Americans who served in difficult combat abroad.

Those saying the VA failed them include Barbara Bachmeier, 54, who reports she was sexually harassed and raped in South Korea in the 1980s while working in military intelligence for the U.S. Army, and then received insufficient care.

“I was having all these various flashbacks and nightmares,” the Alaska resident said in an interview. “But the VA does not want to pay disability payments unless they really have to.”

“Their attitude is not what can we do to help you,” she said, explaining she once considered suicide. “It was very difficult to navigate the VA system.”

In proceedings that could last through May 1, the court will hear testimony not from former service members such as Bachmeier, but from administrators and officials involved in the system.

“He (the judge) can’t actually make decisions about individual issues and while having a veteran talking about their individual experiences is emblematic of the problem, it’s not particularly useful for the judge because he needs to hear about systemic problems,” said Kasey Corbit, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

How this will play out in court remains to be seen- but if nothing else it will shine an even bigger spotlight on a very real, long term, continuing problem that is plaguing troops today.

We’ll continue our coverage on this case as it happens until it’s conclusion- for better or worse.

Please excuse my failure to disguise disgust towards this guy….

At a VFW in Kansas City, Missouri, McCain called our countries care of it’s veterans a disgrace. That’s certainly true. Who would argue otherwise?

He went on to say that if he’s elected, McCain will do everything within his power to ensure that veterans receive “the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care in the world.”

Excuse me, Sen. McCain. May I remind you for a moment that you:

• Voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA’s medical facilities. [5/4/06]
• Voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care “and treatment for veterans,” one of only 13 senators to do so. [4/26/06]
• Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. [3/14/06]
• Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending “abusive tax loopholes.” [3/10/04]
• Voted AGAINST a $650 million increase in veterans’ medical care funding. [8/1/01]

If he didn’t vote for the care of our nation’s veterans in the past, why would he endorse it as the President?

Food for thought.