INJURED TROOPS SHIPPED BACK INTO BATTLE

Military doctors determined that he should not be allowed around
weapons because of his PTSD symptoms. His medical
records show that doctors had "highly recommended"
he not be deployed.

Mark Benjamin of Salon was the first to report on the conditions at Walter Reed.
Story here... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/09/injured_soldiers/
Story below:
---------------
Injured troops shipped back into battle
Salon has uncovered further evidence that the military sent soldiers with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, severe back injuries and other serious war wounds back to Iraq.By Mark Benjamin
On March 9, Army Spc. Thomas Smith was ordered to board a plane from Fort Benning, Ga., to deploy back to Iraq, even though he was known to be suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder from a previous tour there. Only weeks prior, military doctors determined that Smith should not be allowed around weapons because of his PTSD symptoms, which included bouts of sudden, extreme anger. Smith's medical records, obtained by Salon, also show that doctors had "highly recommended" that Smith not be deployed because of his condition.But that did not stop Smith's commanders from ordering him to Iraq as his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was rushing to move out as part of President Bush's so-called surge plan for securing Baghdad."I was told to have my bags in at midnight that night," for the flight, Smith said. "I was sitting there looking at these letters in my hand from my doctors," he recalled in a telephone interview. In order to follow the doctors' recommendations, Smith said, "I had to check myself into the hospital." He avoided the flight by just a few hours. Smith's condition was serious enough that the doctors there kept him hospitalized for nearly two weeks.On March 11, two days after Smith checked himself in, Salon reported on claims by numerous soldiers from Smith's brigade that commanders were pressing injured troops to deploy to Iraq. Soldiers at Fort Benning said that two doctors from the division met with 75 injured soldiers, including Smith, on Feb. 15, in what the troops said was an effort to reevaluate -- and downgrade -- their health problems so that they could be deployed with the rest of the unit. In several cases, medical records provided to Salon supported those allegations, showing the soldiers to be healthier, on paper, than they were prior to that meeting.It remains unclear how many injured troops from the 3rd Brigade were deployed last month. But others continue to come forward who, like Smith, had serious medical problems and narrowly avoided being shipped back to Iraq. The concern of these soldiers is not only that they could worsen their injuries by being deployed, but that they could also be a danger to themselves and the soldiers around them. Their stories add new evidence to accusations that brigade commanders, in desperate need of more troops for the surge were willing to deploy broken soldiers.Hunter Smart, who until recently was a captain in the 3rd Brigade, has experience preparing unit status reports. These detailed accounts showing how many soldiers in a unit are able to deploy to a war zone, make their way up to decision makers in the Pentagon. Smart says he believes brigade commanders were manipulating the reports and pressing injured soldiers to deploy to Iraq. "The unit status report is a big deal," Hunter explained in a phone interview. "You list by name and number the number of soldiers that are hurt and non-deployable," he said. "There was a concerted effort to keep those numbers down."Smart was caught up in those efforts himself. He had suffered a back injury during a previous tour in Iraq when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle crashed, and his injuries were so severe, the Army finally allowed him medical retirement last month, after determining he was no longer fit to serve.Medical retirement from the Army is a lengthy, paperwork-intensive process, one that had started for Smart last December. But to his astonishment, Smart's commanders pushed to deploy him in March, even as the paperwork for his medical retirement was working its way through the bureaucracy. "They were definitely wanting me to be deployed," Smart said. "Up until a few weeks ago, I was set to go on a plane," he said.Smart saved an e-mail exchange in which his battalion commander, Lt. Col. Todd Ratliff, suggests that if the paperwork for Smart's medical retirement was not complete when the unit deployed, Smart might be forced to come along. "If for some reason you are still around when we deploy there is a chance we may take you to support us in Kuwait," Ratliff wrote in an e-mail to Smart on Feb. 16.Smart fought against his redeployment, using the resources available to him as an officer to carefully shepherd his medical retirement papers through the Army bureaucracy just in time. But the experience left him worried about injured enlisted soldiers who were not so lucky -- and left him furious at those in charge. Military commanders "could care less about the soldier's physical and mental welfare, as long as they can shoot straight," Smart said. "Our military is stretched to its breaking point," he added. "Commanders are being backed into a corner in order to produce units that on paper are ready to deploy. They are casting the moral and ethical implications -- and soldiers -- to the side."Smith, the enlisted soldier who was hospitalized, began noticing symptoms of his PTSD within months of returning from Iraq in January 2005, a tour that included significant time in Ramadi, a hotbed of the insurgency. It was nasty, face-to-face work, Smith said, which included a lot of "kicking down doors."Smith's medical records are sadly typical of soldiers beset by PTSD. His doctors have documented agitation, irritability, anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks and a heightened startle response. He has a hard time going out in public. "My family had noticed some big differences with me," after his tour in Iraq, he recalled, including his sudden, intense anger. "They said, 'Hey, you need help.'"Smith sought treatment, and doctors soon diagnosed chronic PTSD. He is now heavily medicated, taking anti-psychotic pills and antidepressants.His records show him struggling with his symptoms as the brigade was gearing up to deploy. On Feb. 8, several military doctors completed a "report of mental status evaluation" on Smith. "It is highly recommended that patient be placed on non-deployable status and have no access to weapons," the doctors wrote. On Feb. 20, another doctor circled "violence risk" on another of Smith's health-assessment forms.But two weeks after that violence-risk notation, Smith found himself just hours away from stepping on to a plane to Iraq. He was running out of time and options. His company commander had already gone to bat for him, with no luck. Smith claims that on two separate occasions, his company commander took his doctors' notes to the brigade commander, Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., in an effort to persuade Grigsby to leave Smith behind in doctors' care. "I've got to hand it to my company commander for trying," Smith said. But Smith said his company commander told him that Grigsby wouldn't budge. Smith resorted to checking himself into the hospital.Privacy rules restrict what Army commanders can say about an individual soldier's medical file. Public affairs officials for the 3rd Infantry Division did not respond to questions for this report on the plight of soldiers who were deployed with injuries. The division surgeon, Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, confirmed in an interview last month that medical officials met with 75 soldiers on Feb. 15. However, Appenzeller maintained that it was to conduct medical exams, update paperwork and make sure injured troops were getting the best healthcare possible.Grigsby, the 3rd Brigade commander, said in an interview last month that the well-being of his soldiers was among his top priorities. He did not deny deploying injured troops, but he asserted that the injured soldiers who were deployed were to be confined to relatively safe jobs. He said those troops would work in a capacity that strictly followed each soldier's "physical profile," a document prepared by doctors spelling out a soldier's physical limitations.But one injured soldier who was deployed to Iraq in March wrote in an e-mail to Salon that her back condition has worsened significantly. "Now my left leg has started to go numb and they are telling me to double up on my meds, which I can't," she wrote. "They are not putting us in safe jobs at all. I still wear all of my gear and by the end of the day the pain is more than unbearable," she added. "I break my [physical] profile pretty much on a daily basis. At this point I will either go back [home] in a wheel chair or paralyzed or worse.""Do what you can," she pleaded in the e-mail, "for the [injured soldiers] that come after me."As Salon revealed in a second report on March 26, the commanders of the 3rd Brigade shipped dozens of injured soldiers to Fort Irwin, Calif., in January as the brigade conducted a month of desert-warfare training. The injured soldiers were put up in two large tents, doing odd jobs and biding their time. Some military experts said they believed commanders were attempting to artificially boost manpower statistics by making it appear that a healthier percentage of the brigade was out in the desert training for Iraq deployment.Both Smith and Smart were among the dozens of soldiers who spent weeks in those tents. Neither could properly train. Smith had already been diagnosed with PTSD at that time, and would awaken at night agitated by the sound of mortars going off in the desert that were used for training. Neither Smith nor Smart was treated for his medical problems while in the desert.In Smart's case, that went directly against the recommendations of his doctors. "I believe taking a month off from his treatment plan will be detrimental to his condition," one chiropractor wrote in Smart's file in late December. "Lack of treatment for this prolonged period of time could cause a setback in his condition that may be difficult to recover."Military families are angered by the treatment of injured soldiers based at Fort Benning. Janie Smith, Thomas' mother, says she was horrified that the Army tried to send her ailing son back to Iraq, which prompted her to contact the media about his predicament.She described him as an outgoing, personable boy. But the 26-year-old man who came back from Iraq is quiet, withdrawn and sometimes suddenly, frighteningly angry, she says. In a restaurant, he sits facing the door, ready to confront an enemy at any moment. His hands constantly shake. "He is an entirely different person," Janie explained in a phone interview.Janie said she was glad when her son first joined the Army. "I was really proud of him," she recalled. But while she is still proud of her son, her feelings for the Army have changed. "They don't care," she said. "I don't know what I'm going to do now."The Army's inspector general and the Government Accountability Office have both launched inquiries since Salon first reported on the deployment of injured troops. There is no indication of when either will issue its findings.
--------------- Larry Scott --

Iraq Veteran tells it like it is!

Why I Cry for Jonathan Shulze
by Adam Charles Kokesh Tue, 03/20/2007 - 1:44am

It is 0230 and I should be asleep. Instead, I am crying my eyes out as I sit in front of my computer, reading again the story of Marine Jonathan Schulze. I am glad that I am crying. I feel like a real human again.
The past week has been incredible for me. I only joined IVAW a month ago. I joined because I had no choice. I didn’t even really know that they existed, but I went online to find something I could do, not even knowing what I was looking for. When I finally came across ivaw.org (Iraq Veteran’s Against the War), I couldn’t deny that that was me: I was a veteran, and goddamnit if I didn’t know from the bottom of my heart that I was against the “war.” As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.” It dawned on me that even if you only want to bring the troops home for one reason, you should be ashamed not to do what you are called upon to do to speak out in whatever capacity you can. It is thus by the authority of my soul that I had no choice but to join IVAW and become a part of the cause.
I eagerly accepted “speaking gigs” before panels at University of Maryland and Howard University. I was interviewed by the BBC for a segment on Fallujah. I got to introduce Michael Franti and Spearhead at their sold out show at the 9:30 club, and then sit behind him onstage at our benefit. I got interviewed by Al Arabia that night, and early again the next morning so that they could get a shot of me with a crowd in the frame. Then I was treated to no less than ten cameras pointed at me for hours as I marched behind our banner and in front of the thousands of marchers that came to support our message and to march on the pentagon.
It was also by the authority of my soul that I participated in Operation First Casualty. I walked point in our squad as we patrolled Washington to bring home the truth of the war and call attention to our cause. I didn’t want to do it. I was scared. I feared that violating the sanctity of the Marine Corps utility uniform would be sacrilege. I think if I was still on active duty right now, and was watching fellow former Marine Sergeant and IVAW member Liam Madden marching through the capitol in his utilities, I probably would have called him a “shit-bag.” But to not participate when perfectly able would have been to betray myself. In light of the stakes, making a parody of military operations is the pettiest of transgressions.
What we did was a little bit crazy, and you have to be a little screwy to do something like this. But we’re the lucky ones. We are among the relatively safe and sane of the returning vets. Take the case of Jonathan Schulze who killed himself after being turned down twice at a VA hospital after telling them twice that he was suicidal. How many more vets need help that don’t even know that they need help? We are starting to see the first homeless vets of this war trickling into shelters. This disgrace is the best proof that our elected officials are only paying lip service to the idea of supporting the troops. But then there are the real crazies, whose ranks I once was a part of, who want to go back to Iraq. I wanted to go back because I didn’t get a purple heart the first time. That is not a normal thought for a human being to have. Had I told any mental health professional outside of the military that I wanted to go back to get injured, I would have been committed.
For better or for worse, this sentiment is somewhat typical in the service. The dedication of our all-volunteer army is the best weapon of defense this country has. The guys in the rear resent being, “one of the guys that didn’t go to Iraq.” And the guys like me look up to the recipients of the purple heart and say, “those are the guys that really sacrificed.” And the guys with the purple hearts say, “Man, I didn’t do shit. The guy standing two feet away from me didn’t make it home in one piece.” The people that feel this way do so because they love their country and they want to lay down the lives for our safety and security. That was why I served.
Towards the end of Operation First Casualty, former Army Sergeant Aaron Hughes, a member of our squad of veterans, pointed out to me that “people are just done,” as we were walking towards Arlington Cemetery for our memorial service. I had suggested we continue to move in a tactical column, as we had been all day, instead of just mobbing over “like a bunch of nasty civilians.” It was then that I realized, standing between fields of crosses stretching into the horizon, that I was done. And I lost it and couldn’t stop crying. At the service, it was all I could do to keep from falling out of formation. Previously as a reservist, I had served on flag details at funerals and on twenty-one gun salute teams. I had always been able to take the tragedy and put it away and not even think about it. Now I am able to cry about it – the way that an ordinary human would if faced with such tragedy. I cry for Jonathan Shulze, a Marine I never knew, because I nearly was him. Maybe I was one incident away. Maybe it could have been your son. Maybe it could have been your friend from high school. Or maybe it was just another stranger who had taken an oath to risk his life when called upon in order to defend your quality of life. Maybe I’m still a little crazy as I go through the process of becoming human again. Maybe I’m just a little riled up from what we did today. But I would have to be fucking nuts to not do anything.

The Verdict's In on Bush

Robert Scheer


Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our President, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.
President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the US presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.
In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world's people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.
"The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the global poll. "The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.' "
More depressing, that judgment is shared by those who know us best: our allies in Britain, the only country still willing to share our sacrifices in Bush's once ballyhooed "Coalition of the Willing." Despite British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dogged support of his American chum, fully 81 percent of Britons told the BBC they are opposed to US actions in Iraq, while a scant 14 percent still believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Mideast.
But it is not just our failure in that all-important region that disgraces us. Those around the world who still believe we play a positive global role has dropped to a miserable 29 percent, strikingly similar to Bush's overall performance numbers at home, according to the most recent CBS poll. So it's true: Bush is "a uniter, not a divider"--uniting people across the world in their opposition to his policies.
With a whopping 71 percent saying in an ABC-Washington Post poll that the country is seriously off track, the Post called it "the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade." And that's at a time when the economy, presumed to be the all-important bellwether, is in halfway decent shape.
It's the war, stupid, and ending it is the major concern of most Americans, while all other issues are in single digits of importance to them.
In a shocking twist, Americans are now turning to the Democrats in Congress for leadership on foreign policy. "Three in 5 Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan," reported the Post. That is a mandate the Democrats ignore at their own peril.
Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush's sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
In fact, it seems as if everyone gets it except the President and those still hunkered down with him in the White House. "They've backed themselves into a tough corner," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Post, "and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want."
He added that it makes Bush seem to say, "I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway." Hardly the message that the leader of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy should be sending to the world. It is a message voters in the midterm election soundly rejected, along with the association of this great country with torture and chicanery, and it is the basis of what the Post calls a mainstream America "honeymoon" with the Democrats.
Americans understand in their gut that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with democracy, here and abroad, would be disastrous. In the same way Congress repudiated an out-of-control President three decades ago, the House and Senate must show the world today that our celebrated system of checks and balances is not just a fanciful mirage.
Spreading the ideal of democracy throughout the world remains a compelling obligation of those who enjoy freedom, making this an excellent occasion to demonstrate that we still possess a system capable of holding a deceitful and egomaniacal leader accountable.