www.hopedance.org

<back | home Is This What "Supporting Our Troops" Really Looks Like? by Sally Carless What does supporting the troops really mean? When the US government attacked Iraq, many assumed that supporting the troops meant supporting the war -- that to speak against the drive to war was to speak against the troops risking their lives overseas. Let’s take another look: is it possible to support the troops and oppose US military policy? As more details about the situation in Iraq come to light, increasing numbers of people, military families included, are finding themselves in just that position. The notion that the American government takes care of its soldiers’ health and needs is a myth. They are exposed to severe health hazards without being informed, they are poorly paid and equipped, they have been misled about the reasons for going to war, and they often receive substandard care when they return from their service. American soldiers are being poisoned, not by Saddam but by their own government’s weapons. The first reports, on national guard soldiers returning to New York from Iraq, are coming in, showing positive tests for depleted uranium (DU) in their systems. DU is a component of toxic nuclear waste. As such, it is extremely cheap. It is also very effective; the densest material available on the market, it can smash through tanks as if they were butter. When DU weapons explode, a fine aerosol of radioactive dust (uranium oxide) is formed. This dust, which remains radioactive for billions of years, is small enough to be inhaled. Once inhaled, these uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. The US military has used hundreds of tons of these weapons -- not just in the Iraqi conflict, but also in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and in the first Gulf War. This dust attaches itself to tanks, clothing and equipment, becomes absorbed in the soil, plants, and water, and is propelled every time the wind blows. DU powder does not discriminate; it gets into the lungs of Iraqi men, women, and children, as well as American service people. The recently tested soldiers from New York were not even in combat -- imagine the amounts of DU waiting to be found in those who were in the midst of fighting and deploying these weapons. Many of the troops currently in Iraq are suffering from "mysterious" symptoms. Why is it that so many of the troops do not even know what depleted uranium is? Why were they told to camp in areas where DU weapons were used? Why weren’t they told that the destroyed Iraqi tanks they pass on their patrols are highly radioactive? The rates of birth defects and cancer in Iraq have skyrocketed since the first Gulf War. Thousands of veterans from that war have fallen ill with a range of symptoms that have come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome. Common complaints include chronic fatigue, multiple cancers, musculoskeletal pain, neurological damage, skin rashes and unusual hair loss, sleep disturbances, menstrual disorders, gastrointestinal problems, abnormal weight loss, upper and lower respiratory problems, memory loss, and chemical sensitivities. Veterans’ children suffer increased rates of sickness as well. Babies whose fathers served in the first Gulf War are 50 percent more likely to have physical abnormalities than those born to soldiers who were not sent to that region, according to a recent study funded by the UK’s Ministry of Defense. The study cited increased risks of genital, urinary and renal abnormalities, deformed limbs, bones and muscles. The Gulf War Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War vets have developed incapacitating illnesses. So far, 209,000 veterans have filed claims for disability benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat in that war. This is the fallout from the supposedly "quick and easy" war that lasted only a few weeks. While the US military claims Gulf War Syndrome is a mystery, many vets -- and scientists -- believe that DU is one of the major causes of their ailments. It took the US 30 years to admit that Agent Orange actually did harm our Vietnam vets, so perhaps the military believes it can put off admitting what is already known about DU for many years to come. In the meantime, our service people are denied proper care. Major Doug Rokke (Ret.) led the Pentagon’s DU assessment team, which spent several months in the Persian Gulf in 1990-91 involved in DU cleanup, research, and follow-up medical care for US personnel exposed to DU. Rokke has since become seriously ill, and many on his team have already died. He published his research in an Army pamphlet which, according to Rokke, was never distributed to NATO troops operating in the Balkans or to civilians living in areas bombarded by DU shells. Rokke’s research concluded that anyone who comes in contact with DU must get medical attention, including those who fired the weapons, as well as anyone who has been near equipment or structures struck with DU shells. In 1999 a United Nations subcommittee called for an initiative banning the use of DU worldwide. The initiative died in committee where it was blocked by the US. In 2003 the European Parliament called for a moratorium on the use of DU. Despite the fact that the US Army acknowledges thehazards of DU in a training manual, the Pentagon continues to deny that it is dangerous. Although US military deaths in Iraq are quite widely reported, the true number of casualties (soldiers killed, injured, captured, or missing in action) is rarely mentioned. Mainstream media estimates of US casualties generally run from 2,000 to 3,000. The Pentagon now states (quietly, of course) that in the first year of the war in Iraq, the military performed over 18,000 medical evacuations, representing roughly 11,700 casualties. The majority of these casualties have occurred since the President landed on the aircraft carrier dramatically declaring "Mission Accomplished." Why is this information so hard to find in the mainstream press? One answer to this question may be that the administration is trying to control the release of information to the American people. Since the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that support for their military actions would erode once people started viewing the arrivals of flag-draped coffins. According to the Washington Post, the current administration’s solution to this dilemma was to ban news coverage and photography of dead soldiers’ homecomings on all military bases. As many as one in ten medical evacuations are for mental problems. This number does not include the soldiers who are evacuated due to physical and mental problems, nor does it count those whose mental problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, do not become apparent until after their removal from the environment. Suicide reports are on the rise, and troop morale continues to deteriorate as the morass deepens in Iraq. Sick and injured reservists at Fort Stewart, Georgia, have reported substandard treatment upon their return from Iraq. Complaints include being housed in cement barracks without window screens or air conditioning; having to walk, sometimes on crutches, to outdoor latrines; and having to wait weeks or months for appointments with Army doctors. There are many reports of soldiers, particularly those in the reserves, being poorly equipped. Many now buy their own body armor before being deployed. Those who cannot afford it simply have to hope they do not come under fire before their protective equipment arrives. Troops also report shortages of rations and other essentials. At the same time he was sending troops off to Iraq, President Bush was proposing substantial cuts in veterans’ benefits. Army privates make less than $16,000 base pay, for risking their lives on a daily basis, and many enlisted families need food stamps to get them through the month. Meanwhile the CEOs of weapons manufacturing companies stay home and make millions. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, 23% of homeless people in the US are veterans. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) estimates that there are close to 300,000 homeless veterans on any given night; more than half-a-million experience homelessness over the course of a year. A large number of these veterans live with lingering effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse; lack of family and social support networks compound the problem. So far,15,000 soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq have filed for disability claims, 12,000 have sought medical treatment from facilities run by the VA, and about 4,600 have sought psychological counseling. Thousands of these soldiers are coming home with missing arms, legs, blindness, and other debilitating conditions. Many end up at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C. According to Senator Patrick Leahy, "The wounded are brought back after midnight, making sure the press does not see the planes coming in with the wounded." These are the invisible casualties of the war. Their stories are heart-breaking, their bodies and lives shattered. They do their best to tell themselves it was worth it, but that gets increasingly harder as time goes on. Amputee Steve Reighard, from Bloomington, Indiana, says, "You know, we kind of have to think like that [believe in what we were doing] otherwise this [missing arm] is in vain." Sergeant Michael Cain, 23, lost his leg in Iraq. Although he says he believes the war was a good thing, when told that his cousin was thinking of enlisting, he responded "He’s crazy. I wouldn’t let him go. He could end up like me." Once released from the hospital, the soldiers often have to fight to get adequate treatment or disability benefits they were promised when they enlisted. They face endless red tape and often have to wait several months for a doctor’s appointment. According to Army Sgt. Vannessa Turner, "It’s easier to stay a soldier and be in harm’s way than to come home and get care." Her sister Nicole shares her frustration: "To me, they threw her away like a piece of trash. She served her country and now nothing is being done for her." The troops are not being given what they need, on the battlefield or at home. So many of the young men and women in Iraq joined the military because it was portrayed as the best option they had to escape lives of poverty and limitation. They were told that for a minimal time-commitment they could earn money and get a college education. Of course, this type of marketing wouldn’t be as enticing to them if the US government spent more on higher education and other vital services instead of pouring money into the Pentagon. (A full 49% of the FY2005 budget is allotted for past and current military expenses, while only 33% is set aside for human resources: health/human services, education, housing, etc.) Others joined because they believed what they were told: that going to Iraq would protect the US from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Well, Saddam’s WMDs still haven’t been found, but the troops are coming home poisoned from the weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction used by their own government. Military recruiters have easy access to youth at most schools, especially since a little-publicized provision in the No Child Left Behind Act (aka "No Child Left Unrecruited Act") makes it easier for recruiters to gain students’ personal information. Who watches over these recruiters to make sure that they are telling the truth? Who is going to tell these vulnerable teenagers that along with the known risk of being killed by "foreign enemies" they also run the risk -- increasingly higher as more and more depleted uranium is being scattered throughout the world -- of being slowly killed by their own country’s weapons? Do they realize that adequate treatment will be hard to come by, that they face serious reductions in their health and disability benefits? Do they know that one in four of the homeless men in America are veterans, or that close to 30% of the veterans from the first Gulf War are disabled and that nearly 10,000 have died? Those who profit from war benefit when groups of caring people are polarized by politics or distracted by the latest celebrity news. It works well for them to silence dissent by saying, "You’re either with us or against us." It is time to see through all the propaganda that has been used to divide us. The days when the "support our troops" people and the "peace" people stand on opposite sides of the street need to come to an end. Whether one believes that the troops should be in Iraq or not, it is clear that the government and the military are not properly supporting them. US troops trusted their government to tell them the truth, and to take reasonably good care of them. They have the right to expect nothing less. Sally Carless is the founder and director of Global Village School for Peace and Diversity Studies, an international K-12 distance-learning diploma program dedicated to teaching about peace and justice. She can be reached at sally@globalvillageschool.org. Additional resources as well as articles documenting the facts stated in this article can be found at www.globalvillageschool.org/resources.html and www.globalvillageschool.org/troops.html. <back | top^ home | current issue | subscribe | books | events | contact us