Anti-war group claims message stifled

Anti-war group claims message stifled — Elgin news, photos and events — TribLocal.com

by Melissa Jenco, triblocal.com
April 15th 2011

Fox Valley Citizens for Peace and Justice is pushing for permission to continue giving high school students literature that some have complained paints a negative picture of the military.

Members of the group told the Elgin-based School District U-46 school board Monday that administrators at Elgin High School no longer will let them distribute some of their material, which focuses on veteran unemployment rates, sexual harassment of women and the military contract. Members usually staff a table at the school monthly in order to counteract what military recruiters hand out.

“It is in the best interest of students to have as much information as possible before making such an important decision,” said Bettina Perillo, a board member. But after some students complained, administrators told the group to stop.

Washington Elementary parent Cheryl Brumbaugh-Cayford, who staffs a similar table at Larkin High School, told the school board she is concerned the military is being promoted to younger and younger students.

“I believe the school board must ask a serious question about how promotion of the military is creeping into our schools, carrying with it the promotion of violence,” she said.

The board also heard from a man lost his son fighting in Afghanistan and feels the military lied to him. An Iraq War veteran who now shares his experiences with youth spoke, too.

“I’ve never been anti-military, probably never will be, but I do believe as a young 16-, 17-year-old child you should be given a balanced understanding of what you’re getting into, especially into something you’re going to be doing for a career that could possibly cost you your life,” veteran Melvin Lyons said.

Members and supporters of Fox Valley argue they are passive, only talking to the students who approach their table. They have been making visits to Elgin High School since 2006 and also visit South Elgin and Larkin high schools.

When questions were raised two or three years ago, about the group’s presence, a new policy was formulated on access to students.

The policy states recruiters, whether for college, military, or alternatives to the military, cannot interfere with students’ education, talk to students outside the designated area, provide information to students who don’t ask for it, require students to take predictive tests, sponsor drawings or recruit when students are unable to leave.

U-46 Chief Legal Officer Pat Broncato said the district will look into Fox Valley’s complaints about not being able to hand out literature.

Elgin High School Principal Dave Smiley declined comment Tuesday.



Original Page: http://triblocal.com/elgin/2011/04/26/anti-war-group-claims-message-stifled/

Shared from Read It Later

The return of ROTC

The return of ROTC

sfbg.com | Apr 28th 2011

The almost-certain end to the military's discrimination against lesbians and gay men is causing all kinds of educational institutions to take another look at ROTC programs, the latest being Stanford [1], which scrapped the on-campus military training regime during the waning days of the Vietnam War.

I'm not going to get into an anti-military rant here (tho I could), but in a sense, the "don't ask, don't tell" bullshit has given us on the left an easy way out: As long as the military discriminates -- and by definition it does -- then it doesn't belong in our schools. I'm okay with that, but I also think we need to go a bit deeper here, and ask:

At what age, and under what circumstances, is it okay for military recruiters and recruitment programs to go after young people?

It's all the more imperative today, since college is becoming unaffordable for so many -- and military programs like ROTC, with their ample scholarships, have to be tempting.

I'd start with a basic premise: No recruiters should have access to kids under 18, anywhere, any time. That means no JROTC programs in high schools. Kids that young are too easily swayed by uniforms and bravado; they need to learn to think before they decide they might want to die.

The law says you can enlist at 18, so I guess it's arguable that college kids can enlist while they study. But it seems to contracy to what college ought to be about. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd say nobody could join the military until he or she reaches 21. Old enough to drink, old enough to fight. We have decided as a society that college-age kids aren't mature enough to handle alcohol; it would seem like a no-brainer to conclude that they aren't old enough to make a fateful life decision.

ROTC in college? It still bothers me. Even after don't ask, don't tell is gone.



Original Page: http://www.sfbg.com/print/politics/2011/04/28/return-rotc

Shared from Read It Later

The State Does Not 'Support=?UTF-8?B?wqBJdHPCoFRyb29w?=s'

The State Does Not 'Support Its Troops'

by Andrew Mason, lewrockwell.com

The state has little care for veterans. The notion of an uncaring state has shown itself over the course of America’s one-hundred years of imperial conquest. This can especially be observed when their contract with the state is no longer valid. Of course, some will argue that the benefits the government gives to veterans (G.I Bill and disability benefits) claim otherwise. However, these so-called benefits create a culture of dependency where the veteran is made a slave to the state like many other Americans who need the government to survive and not thrive. Furthermore, veterans have and will be financially and physically violated by the state in the long run. I am not going to talk about the fact of being sent to unjust wars, or the hundreds of thousands that have been murdered or maimed. What needs to be brought to light are the more subtle costs of war that do not get as much public attention. If you are a veteran reading I beg you to read carefully.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is quite animate in leaving you and your family in misery. The agency that is supposed to look out for your best interests and help care for you, Department of Veterans Affairs has failed miserably, it is after all a government agency, and has dealt a great has even made a deal with Prudential Financial Inc which was withholding the death benefits from your family when you are deceased. Prudential would then use this money for their investment pleasures. We have only just begun.

I hope that some of you remember the depleted uranium rounds you used while deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. Some of you probably had some concerns about handling depleted uranium and your officers probably told you that it was harmless since the word "depleted" is next to "uranium" but this is really a misnomer. Uranium is still uranium no matter how much of it is in an armor-piercing projectile. Once depleted uranium munitions explode, uranium oxide is released into the atmosphere or absorbed into the soil which is extremely toxic. There are thousands of Iraqi children now being born with birth defects as a result of uranium weapons usage in and around the cities of Iraq. God knows how many innocent Afghanis and most likely Libyans have been exposed to this toxicity. Of course, there are also countless numbers of veterans who have also been exposed to this weapon of mass of destruction, so there is no telling how many of them have been afflicted. The government refuses to acknowledge that "depleted" uranium is terrible for one’s health. This is also cited as a potential cause of the Gulf War Syndrome the veterans of Gulf War I have encountered. Not only is the government sanctioning the use of ammo that also harms you but remember they are burned waste products next to your dwellings.

Yes, the thought that the burning trash pits next to your barracks probably never crossed your mind. I, for one, was more concerned about not being killed by Iraqis who were upset by our military’s occupation of their country. Nonetheless, there have been veteran victims of the burning trash pits which the state or government contractors rubber-stamped. This is should be extremely disheartening to all of us. Those who were prepared to be killed by a bullet from a foreigner are actually being slowly killed by the actions of their own government.

Of course now that you have returned from the wars abroad and are now mostly liberated from the physical clutches of the state; you are much more of a liability. Remember those towel wearing cave dwellers who we were fighting because they "hated us for our freedom"? Well, now you are the terrorist threat, according to state security. Head of the Department of Homeland Thuggery, Janet Napolitano, has already made her official apology, or in other words, she apologized that you found out how the government perceives you. The threat is grave for the state lest you learn the truth about what you (and I) have really helped defend.

You see, the longer we are at war across the sea the greater the state’s power over us becomes and has it become great. The power of the state has rapidly increased with the creation of an agency whose sole purpose is to spy on you and other Americans who just may be anti-establishment. Moreover, the state also has the power to kill those who are considered terrorists and the state’s definition of terrorist can change whenever it wants. In other words, it may not always be the turban-wearing cave dwellers who are the terrorists but it could be you. Remember they believe you already have the potential to be one. The state did not "thank us for our service" in the defense of the American people, rather we were being thanked for perpetuating the state’s own interests. You would have the potential to spark a revolution in the minds of millions of Americans who buy into the official lies of the state’s imperial policies. Of course, this is because you have seen the horrors of war yourself and would be most influential in swaying the people’s opinion on this government’s foreign policy based on your experience alone.

The war-mongering and chicken-hawk conservatives absolutely do not give a flying crap about your well-being. One self-proclaimed conservative who claims to support the troops does not in fact support them after they come home and are left with the scars of war such as missing limbs, PTSD, and various other war inflicted diseases. In essence, she says let us continue to fight the war on terror and leave the increasing amount of war veterans on the side of the road. If that is not the definition of a double-standard I really do not know what is. You have members of Congress support the troops when they are killing for them but when they come back home; well, it was the killing that really mattered. Thus the conclusion should come as quite a serious matter.

The state has no real interest in your well-being for many reasons although it may appear to care. From the signing away of death benefits to financial firms, using toxic weaponry in combat, building burning trash dumps next to your quarters, and countless other examples of willful negligence by the state; it should become quite apparent that we were mere pawns on a global chess board. The media has reported that veteran’s disability benefits and medical care are to become as big as social security, so with the economic crisis deepening there is a good chance these benefits will not last. We need to start looking to build a society based on self-reliance, peace, and liberty. Lastly, the liberty I speak of has been encapsulated into a book and has been defined!

Andrew Mason is a former corporal in the U.S.M.C.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



Original Page: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/mason-a3.1.1.html

Shared from Read It Later

On Encountering Support for the U.S.=?UTF-8?B?wqBNaWxpdGFyeQ==?=

On Encountering Support for the U.S. Military

lewrockwell.com

Yellow ribbons pasted on cars is the least of the support given to the military by Americans. In a blog, Laurence Vance reports on third-graders singing "Thank You Soldiers." Stephan Kinsella reports an airplane flight attendant thanking members of the military on board "for their service."

These reports encourage me to report on an incident about which I had previously decided to keep quiet, for there may be a nationwide trend going on here that should be brought out into the open. Of even greater importance is a serious intellectual issue. Is support of the military a political action or is it a neutral action? Can one separate support for the military personnel from what the military does, or from its obedience to military actions that one finds objectionable?

This story and the debate on these questions will be told without my editorializing. Instead I will display the contents of e-mails. They contain the debate. They contain my side of it, and they contain that of my opponents.

The story began on February 7 at 9:25 a.m. when I got an e-mail from a committee of the School of Management (SOM) at University at Buffalo. This is where I used to work. The committee is called Strengthen Our Sense of Community Committee. It informed me

"The UB School of Management SSCC (Strengthen Our Sense Of Community Committee) is working with AMillionThanks.org to send thank-you notes to members of our military (active, reserve and veterans). During the week of February 7 to 11, there will be a table set up in the Alfiero Center Atrium. Please stop down and write a brief note of appreciation and gratitude to send to our men and women serving our country. We have over 200 note cards to fill out, please spread the word!"

Six members of the committee signed this appeal.

At 10:11 a.m., I sent a bluntly worded e-mail to the Dean of the SOM:

"The SSCC sent me this strange request. I don't know whose idea this was, but it's a bad idea. The UB School of Management should not be involved in politics! This kind of thing supports the military, but such support is a political thing. A huge number of people object to using the military in such ventures as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many, many other places in the world. Therefore, such support coming from UB definitely takes a political position that is not neutral. The School has no business taking such a stance. I won't wash the School's dirty linen in public, but if this idea is not dropped, I surely will inform the Provost and the President of the University."

The Dean replied to me that night at 11:44 p.m., writing

"Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate the concern you have expressed. I wish to assure you that the School of Management should absolutely stay out of politics, to me this is axiomatic in the academic community. However, I do not agree that the SSCC request indicates a political position. This is a volunteer activity that supports a segment of our society that serves the nation. I venture to think that veterans can be worthy of gratitude for their service without regard to their particular assignments, just as I do not consider the Vietnam memorial as a glorification of that war. It is entirely possible that others may disagree with this view, in which case they would opt not to respond to [SSCC’s] call. To my mind, suppressing an activity like this goes against the spirit of free exchange of ideas that the academy should preserve. It would also put the dean in the unwelcome position of favoring one cause over another, which I would be loathe to do. I will try to be vigilant that future volunteer efforts of this kind maked [sic] the non-political nature of the effort more explicit."

At 5:30 a.m. the next morning, having read the Dean’s reply, I responded at some length as follows:

"I wish I could agree with you 100%, but I cannot, for I find contradictions in your thinking about this.

"1. You say ‘...absolutely stay out of politics...’ That is my position too, and I agree it's ‘axiomatic’.

"2. Does the SSCC activity breach this axiom? Yes, indeed. How else are we to understand what I was told? It says ‘The UB School of Management SSCC (Strengthen OurSense Of Community Committee) is working with AmillionThanks.org to send thank-you notes to members of our military(active, reserve and veterans). During the week of February 7 to 11, there will be a table set up in the Alfiero Center Atrium. Please stop down and write a brief note of appreciation and gratitude to send to our men and women serving our country. We have over 200 note cards to fill out, please spread the word!’

"The SSCC decided this was a worthwhile activity. It decided to partner with a supportive group. It designated a time and place, within the SOM, as a locus for the activity. It asked people and encouraged them to participate. It took the political position that these men and women are serving the country, when that is the very thing that is non-neutral, for many believe they are not serving the country but other interests and the State. They encouraged spreading the word.

"They advertised the organization AMillionThanks. Its activity is thoroughly political. I quote [from their website]: ‘A Million Thanks is a year-round campaign to show our appreciation for our U.S. Military Men and Women, past and present, for their sacrifices, dedication, and service to our country through our letters, emails, cards, and prayers.’ Who do you think commands them? The executive-in-chief. To do what? Aren't wars political? Who pays for these wars? How? Through taxes. Aren't those politically determined?

"What do you think all of that activity is, if not political activity?

"I have strongly to disagree with you.

"To make my point, what if the SSCC had done the opposite? What if it partnered with a peace group and encouraged a campaign to ask Congress to stop funding these wars? What if it organized a campaign of writing letters to soldiers asking them to STAND DOWN and not obey immoral orders in immoral wars that kill civilians? What if it organized protests against some egregious activities of soldiers in these wars?

"Would you tell me that this is not political?

"I shouldn't have to spell this out for you. You are an intelligent man. I think you have not thought through this clearly enough, and so I have to make you understand that your position is superficial and wrong in being inconsistent with the axiom that you propose and that is correct.

"There are those who are grateful to the military, but there are those who are not. That is true. That implies that the SOM should not take a position one way or another by the activities involved in providing a locus and focus for one side and encouraging the expression of one side.

"You express a very naive attitude toward this, which is that support of troops in this way doesn't support the activities that these troops engage in, but it does. It is merely one step removed, because these troops join and are paid to do these tasks. The money is exacted by the government. The troops willingly become part of a political process that has a military manifestation.

"I request that you stop this activity as quickly as possible and certainly do nothing like it in the future. If that prohibition needs to be made explicit in the code of the SOM, that should be done."

At 8:46 a.m., the Dean replied:

"It is clear that we disagree. I have nothing further to contribute as I do not find it appropriate for a dean to engage in a discussion of political leanings or preferences."

I then informed the Provost, as I said I would. I left the President out of it since he has resigned. I sent the Provost all the e-mails and added these comments:

"It seems to me that the SOM is engaging in political activity when it should not. The Dean and I disagree on this.

"A committee in the SOM is acting as a locus and focus to encourage a letter-writing campaign to U.S. military personnel.

"My ideas on this and the Dean's ideas are contained in the attached exchange of e-mails.

"I'd like to see the SOM cease this activity and return to a true state of neutrality, which means saying and doing nothing one way or another with respect to military personnel. Disengagement seems to me to be neutral.

"Dean Assad seems to think that using SOM facilities, committees, and batch e-mails to promote letters to the military is neutral. I do not. That takes a stance in favor of the military who have joined the armed forces willingly and who willingly become instruments of the political policies of U.S. administrations. Since these by nature are political and meet with disagreement in the nation, I do not see how the Dean's position can be maintained. I think he is wrong and that the activity is wrong. I want to see it stopped."

On Wednesday, I had a few further thoughts and passed them on to the Provost:

"Dear Dr. Tripathi,

"As you deliberate, consider another thing. In re-reading what Arjang said in his reply, I realize that he has made an argument that supports my contention. He wrote

"‘This is a volunteer activity that supports a segment of our society that serves the nation. I venture to think that veterans can be worthy of gratitude for their service without regard to their particular assignments, just as I do not consider the Vietnam memorial as a glorification of that war. It is entirely possible that others may disagree with this view, in which case they would opt not to respond to [SSCC’s] call.’

"He asserted his opinion that the activity supports ‘our society’ that ‘serves the nation’. But he admits that ‘others may disagree with this view.’ Yes, they may. That indicates that the activity is not neutral.

"In his view, what makes it neutral is that it is a ‘volunteer’ activity and that those who disagree with it can ‘opt out’. But is that true? I think not. The fact that one is not required to participate (participation is voluntary) doesn't make it neutral politically. Imagine that this committee or some other one now comes along and looks for letters to Congress that protest against the use of the military in Iraq, or against some other current issue like national health insurance, and suppose these letters are voluntary. Does that make the activity neutral? It means that the SOM has become a forum for political matters, that e-mails are being sent in batches to everyone promoting positions, and that space is being used, and time of employees being used for political positioning. This, I say, is not neutral to politics.

"Arjang goes on to say ‘To my mind, suppressing an activity like this goes against the spirit of free exchange of ideas that the academy should preserve. It would also put the dean in the unwelcome position of favoring one cause over another, which I would be loathe to do.’ But since when is it the mission of the SOM to air political conflicts and to promote support for one side or another? And, more fundamentally, is letter-writing an aspect of any ‘free exchange of ideas’? Does Arjang propose to use the SOM facilities to have a debate on the role of the U.S. military? That would be more in line with an academic mission. It might not be the SOM's bailiwick, but it would be consistent with a university. But taking one side of such a debate is not.

"Is the Dean favoring one cause over another by promoting this activity? I say he is. He says that if he disallowed this campaign, he'd be suppressing the free exchange of ideas. I think that is nonsense. There's no exchange going on in this. It's strictly one-sided. There is no SOM committee or statement that I know of that has opened up the SOM for political debates and begun to promote the school as a locus for airing particular political postures. If there were and if this activity were done properly in such a context, it might lend it the credibility that Arjang seeks. Even then, would this be a credible avenue for such activity? It doesn't look that way. It would need a neutral committee to promote debates and exchanges. This committee has not been formed in that way or with that purpose by the appearance of its communications or by what it has chosen to do."

"Cordially,

"Michael

This missive resulted in silence. Days passed. On February 18, I sent an e-mail to Provost Tripathi:

"Dear Dr. Tripathi,

"It's now 9-10 days since I communicated to you, in detail, my concerns about political activity within the SOM.

"What have you decided on this matter?

"Cordially,

"Michael Rozeff (Professor Emeritus)"

Dr. Tripathi answered the next day:

"Dear Professor Rozeff,

"I apologize for my belated response. I have given this matter thought. Indeed, we are mindful that some may view the efforts of the Strengthen our Sense of Community Committee as having a political message. From my vantage point, I believe that this particular activity is, on balance, probably more aptly deemed a community service activity. This is a completely voluntary effort and faculty and staff can chose [sic] to participate or chose [sic] not to participate. I know that my perspective on this does not conform with your perspective, but as academics I think we are use [sic] to people approaching issues from different frames of reference. As I write, I know that this is not the response you were seeking, but I do hope that at least we can respect our differences of opinion at least on this matter.

"Sincerely,

"SatishTripathi"

The entire interchange ended with my final e-mail sent to Dr. Tripathi an hour later:

"Dear Dr. Tripathi,

"You know, if you had been willing to give just a little, we could find a solution. If you had simply said that in the future you'd instruct the committee to be more mindful of the kind of concerns expressed by me and to make a concerted effort to avoid any hint of political involvement, that would have sufficed.

"You didn't do that. Instead you told me what your belief is about this particular activity. That means you were 100% nonresponsive to me and my concerns. You gave them no weight. Only your judgment mattered.

"Well, I'm sorry, but I find that an unacceptable response on your part.

"Therefore, I ask you to reconsider along the lines I've just mentioned. Does it not seem reasonable that the committee be made to know from you that it needs to be more mindful of crossing boundaries that should not be crossed? Doesn't it need to know that cystic fibrosis is not the same as supporting war? Doesn't it need to know that ‘community’ is not a catchall phrase that justifies support of everything involving any community in America? After all, there are good and bad communities.

"Sincerely,

"Michael Rozeff"

I never got an answer.

An interesting thing happened on March 17. Tripathi was chosen to be UB’s next President.

I really did not expect to change much immediately. At most I expected to plant seeds of doubt, so that the next time something like this arises, people will think twice about what they are doing. Raising doubts is a step in awakening consciousness.

It is dismaying that people who possess ordinary intelligence do not see that support of the military is a political position, and that turning a blind eye to such support in a business school is biased in favor of a political position, which in this case is pro-militarism.

I was taken aback by this military support coming to roost in a business school. This committee has all sorts of community efforts that it can support and has supported, such as its effort on cystic fibrosis. The fact that it chose to support the military could be, in my opinion, a sign of people refusing to face unpleasant facts about what the American military has been and is doing overseas. Hearing criticism, many people whose being is associated with the nation-state respond by asserting the value of the military and expressing support of it. A person indoctrinated into a supine patriotism of flag-waving and blind support of the state and its wars will naturally rally to its defense against criticism, because their person has been lost or diminished as a result of the indoctrination. They have submerged themselves into the state. Freeing them from these beliefs requires patience and continual exposure to ideas of freedom, peace, and government to which they are unaccustomed. Plant seeds and wait for their fruition. Don’t expect instant conversions. It takes time to shed old beliefs and take on new ones.

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



Original Page: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff345.html

Shared from Read It Later

Half the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated by VA receive mental health

Half the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated by VA receive mental health care

by Bob Brewin, nextgov.com
March 22nd 2011

Slightly more than half of all Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans treated by the Veterans Affairs Department received care for mental health problems, roughly four times the rate of the general population, according to statistics compiled by the advocacy group Veterans for Common Sense based on data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The data show that among the 625,834 Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans enrolled in the VA health care system as of December 2010, 313,670 were treated for mental health conditions.

Lee Igel, a psychologist and assistant professor at New York University, said the numbers were "staggering" when compared to the general population.

The National Institute of Mental Health reported in 2008, the latest data available, that 13.4 percent of adults in the United States received treatment for mental health problems.

Read the entire Broken Warriors series.Sonja Batten, assistant deputy chief patient care services officer for mental health at the Veterans Health Administration, agreed the data obtained by Veterans for Common Sense showed that a "significant number" of veterans from the current wars were receiving mental health care. She told Nextgov these were provisional diagnoses that could be revised downward by as much as one-third.

Data VA subsequently provided to Nextgov showed that the department cared for 386,497 Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans in fiscal 2010, and out of that number, 161,794 -- or 41.9 percent -- received a primary diagnosis of a mental health condition, a rate three times higher than that of the general population. Data compiled by Veterans for Common Sense included Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated at VA facilities from 2002 through 2010, whereas the numbers VA provided Nextgov reflect 2010 data only.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said VA is trying to downplay the mental health problems of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans.

The data Sullivan's group obtained under the FOIA request were categorized according to diagnostic codes used by VA clinicians, Sullivan said. The numbers showed that 122,175 veterans were diagnosed with depression, 102,767 with neurotic disorders and another 72,952 with a combination of depression, anxiety and mood swings. More than 78,000 were diagnosed with a variety of other conditions, including alcoholism and drug abuse.

The data also showed that 182,147, or 29 percent of all Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated by VA, sought care for post-traumatic stress disorder, Sullivan said. This is almost double the rate of PTSD for Vietnam War veterans, which is 15.2 percent, and more than double the rate of PTSD among Gulf War veterans, which is 12.1 percent, according to a fact sheet from VA's National Center for PTSD.

The data Veterans for Common Sense obtained from VA does not include any information on veterans who sought help from clinicians outside the Veterans Health Administration, Sullivan said. As such, he believes Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans' mental health problems actually are underreported.

Barbara Van Dahlen, founder and president of Give an Hour, a Bethesda, Md.-based nonprofit that arranges free counseling services with private practitioners for veterans, agreed. She said 67 percent of Vietnam veterans sought help outside VA, and expects many current veterans to do so, particularly in areas that do not have a VA hospital or clinic.

Tom Vande Burgt, an Army National Guard veteran who served in Iraq and runs the Lest We Forget PTSD peer-support group in Charleston, W.Va., with his wife, Diane, also believes the data obtained by Veterans for Common Sense likely underreports mental health problems because many veterans do not fully understand their benefits.

In addition, Vande Burgt said many veterans do not seek mental health care, preferring to "hide out in the basement, playing video games until there is some sort of triggering event."

Effects of Multiple Deployments

VA's Batten, mental health professionals outside the department and veteran advocates all agree the large numbers of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans seeking mental health care reflects the cumulative effects of multiple deployments during the past decade. As deployments increase, "the population in need grows," she said.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said he is concerned that troop cuts recently proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates "will only increase the burden of deployment on an increasingly smaller force." Miller, in an e-mail statement, added that the Defense Department "must ensure that our soldiers have adequate dwell time between deployments and that we are not relying too heavily on a fewer number of troops."

Miller, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said Defense needs to demonstrate that "the number and length of deployments are not having an effect on the mental health of service members."

Diane Vande Burgt, echoing the views of mental health experts interviewed by , said, "There is no doubt in my mind that multiple deployments are the biggest reason for the high numbers. Stress levels are probably through the roof. When someone is overloaded on stress and gets no relief they begin to suffer both mentally and physically."

The fact that so many Afghanistan and Iraq veterans have sought help from VA for their mental health problems stands out as good news among otherwise grim statistics, experts and advocates agreed. Igel said the data show the current crop of veterans have overcome the stigma that felt by Vietnam veterans.

Miller agreed. "We're doing a much better job encouraging service members to come forward and seek treatment than at any other time in our nation's history, and that is one of many reasons for the high numbers. Some of our service members and veterans have experienced severe mental anguish, and I am thankful that they are seeking treatment," he said.

But Margaret Stone, co-founder and chairwoman of the Veterans Healing Initiative, which provides funding to treat veterans who suffer from substance abuse and PTSD in nongovernment facilities, said, "The stigma associated with mental health [and] substance abuse remains pervasive throughout the military and society and so we still see a lag time between the time a vet returns and when he or she ultimately receives care."

Miller said a number of factors could explain the increase in the number of recent veterans seeking mental health care from VA. "Better education on mental health and reducing stigma associated with asking for help are contributors. I also believe this increase can be attributed to outreach by VHA and increased access to VA health care enrollment.... Health care professionals are also better now at diagnosing mental health conditions both in the field and in VA and DoD medical facilities," he said.

The data on the mental health treatment of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans indicate that more resources are needed to treat these veterans, Stone said. In particular, she said VA must do a better job serving veterans who don't live or work near the department's hospitals and clinics.

Vande Burgt agreed, and noted National Guard and reserve troops have been hit hard by multiple deployments and are more likely to live in rural communities poorly served by VA.

Veterans Affairs should consider opening more rural clinics and contracting with outside services to reach underserved areas, she said.



Original Page: http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110322_2917.php?oref=topnews

Shared from Read It Later