View the interview on video or read the transcript at Democracy Now!
Gregg and Jannett Keesling talk about the suicide of their son.
Showing posts with label redeployments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redeployments. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Who Will Probe 'Noncombat' Deaths in Iraq?
About 20% of the U.S. deaths in Iraq are officially labeled "noncombat," and that number has been surging. This includes accidents, friendly fire and well over 120 suicides. But the government, and the media, seem reluctant to expose the tragedy, argues vets leader Paul Rieckhoff.
By Greg Mitchell NEW YORK (November 06, 2007)
-- Pretty much alone in the media, E&P for weeks had been charting a troubling increase in non-combat deaths among U.S. troops in Iraq.
So it came as no surprise recently when the Pentagon announced that it would probe the perplexing trend. Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations director of the Joint Staff, said commanders in Iraq were concerned enough about the spike in non-combat deaths -- from accidents, illness, friendly-fire or suicide -- that it had asked for an assessment by an Army team.
According to Pentagon figures, 29 soldiers lost their lives in August for non-hostile reasons, and another 23 died of non-combat causes in September. Compare that with the average for the first seven months of this year: fewer than nine per month.
The spike has coincided with extended 15-month deployments, one senior military official said. The military officially counts about 20% of the nearly 3900 U.S. fatalities in Iraq as "noncombat." It has officially confirmed 128 suicides in Iraq since 2003, with many others under investigation (and still more taking place on the return home).
Lt. Gen. Ham said morale remains high, but added, "I think there is a general consensus ... that for the Army, 15 months is a long hard tour. It's hard on the soldiers."
As I've noted repeatedly, the military releases little news to the press when a service member dies from a non-hostile cause, beyond saying it is "under investigation."
When that probe ends, many months later, the military normally does not tell anyone but family members of the deceased.
For more than four years, however, E&P has kept close tabs on non-combat deaths, and nearly every day lately I have combed the Web for details on new cases. Sometimes local newspapers find out about preliminary determinations -- including suicides -- passed along to families. So I checked again today on October casualties Vincent Kamka, Dr. Roselle Hoffmaster, and others.
In doing that a few days ago, I discovered what happened to Cpt. Erik T. Garoutte of Santee, Ca. He was a Marine who died last month at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune he "was exercising when he collapsed. He never regained consciousness."
More tragedy followed: His mother, Donna Stone, also of Santee, had a heart attack after hearing about his death. The Union-Tribune related that "the family hopes an autopsy will explain what caused Garoutte to die."
But why has the press given this so little attention to noncombat deaths, going back to the early days of the war?
Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq vet and now leader of the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, has long shared my concerns and frustration. Rieckhoff, author of the memoir "Chasing Ghosts," calls this "one of the most under- reported stories of the war.
I've been pitching the story to people for over two years. A lot of deaths are taking place under questionable circumstances -- the number would surprise you -- and no one looks at them, in theater or at home. It's a broad research project, and maybe it is not sexy, but it needs to be done."
The Veterans Administration doesn't track the deaths, Rieckhoff says. "I'd like to see a study of how many Iraq vets have died under any circumstance back in this country," he declares.
"We have suicide rates tracked in the military, but once they leave it is untraced. We have argued for a national registry, if you have been in the war."
Nobody has ever taken the step of pulling it all together. I know it would be expensive, time-consuming, and difficult for the media, but it is their responsibility. They did it with body armor, with corruption, now with Blackwater. You could at least do a clustering, like around Fort Bragg -- look at the deaths of all veterans within a 100-mile radius. If we could fund it, we would, but our group is too small."
What is his theory about the recent spike? "We know that our people are under tremendous stress," he replies.
"The operational tempo is unprecedented. I met a guy in a bar who has been there eight times. He said, 'Thank God I am young and single.' "We can push them harder, but is it smart? I don't think it is smart, or is right."
The surge in non-hostile deaths does not mean just suicides, but accidents due to overwork. Soldiers don't have a union like police and firemen, Rieckhoff points out. Federal agencies "would have a field day with working conditions," he adds. Why has there been so little coverage?
"I know access to the battle zone is an issue," he admits. "And dealing with families is delicate, but you can still handle it sensitively."
But he also cites what he calls a cultural issue: "After World War II, a lot of vets went into media and could navigate the system. Now so few reporters have served. Many don't know the difference between a brigade and a battalion. Also there is fear of how it is going to play in the pro- or anti-war debate. But this is not a partisan issue. Either way -- get to the bottom of this."
American people don't know a lot about these issues. People abroad ask me, are Americans stupid? I say, 'No, they just aren't told enough.'"
***UPDATE: I received the following two letters in response to the above.
*Thank you for addressing the non-combat deaths issue. I’ve been struck by the number of people killed when vehicles drove into canals (Michael Kelly of the Washington Post being the best known of these). Another mystery you should call attention to is the medivacs of people for non-combat injuries and illnesses, which far exceed those for combat injuries.
Icasualties.org reports 24,912 non-hostile medivacs, which means the people were flown out or Iraq and to Germany (or perhaps other military hospitals). Some 18,741 of the patients suffer from disease/other (as opposed to the 6,171 for non-combat related injuries, presumably trauma).
Disease? Three times as many of our troops are being flown out of Iraq for disease than wounds in battle (6,354), and yet we hear nothing about this epidemic, or whatever it is.
Soldiers are selected for their good health to begin with and most troops deployed are in their 20s and almost all, other than the National Guard duffers who have been sent over, are under 40. These diseases are serious enough that the soldiers have been flown out of the country, so we’re not talking about colds or even the clap, which can be treated with antibiotics. And Iraq seems a little short on prostitutes and brothels serving the U.S. forces anyway, unless they among the “contractors” being flown in from Thailand and other countries to provide services.
So we have a situation where thousands of certifiably healthy young men and women are coming down with diseases of some sort that are serious enough to get them flown out of the country on an emergency basis. What’s going on over there? Also, as for stress levels, the U.S. Army concluded in WWII that 24 weeks of combat was about all anyone could take and still be able to function as reasonably effective soldiers. That is about a third of the current tours of duty in Iraq.
Edward Furey New York, N.Y.*
*I would defy anyone to say with any assurance that they know what the Iraq combat casualties are (under the traditional definition) or that they know of a way to calculate them. The media has made it a practice to show only the number of deaths. On the rare occasion that they show deaths and wounded they are hit with a barrage of letters accusing them of being anti-war. Lord help them if they ever reported a total casualties figure. Even the dead reported may be under counted. We just have no way of knowing from official figures.
No one can sit there in Dover and count the airplanes and the caskets. Its verboten.
Has anyone ever attempted to use Nexis-Lexis to count the dead in news stories from around the country? I t is obscene to count as a non-combat death a death that occurs when a military vehicle overturns in a combat zone-- and all of Iraq is a combat zone. If I had a son or daughter killed in Iraq in that manner I would feel that that son or daughter had some how been denigrated, that their death was not as "worthy" as that of someone shot by an Iraqi.
The media now controlled by conglomerates involved with the defense industries or dependent on favorable governmental rulings no longer serves a higher purpose (if it ever did). It is all too ready to go along to get along.
Bob Reynolds Orange Park, Fla.
--reprinted with permission
By Greg Mitchell NEW YORK (November 06, 2007)
-- Pretty much alone in the media, E&P for weeks had been charting a troubling increase in non-combat deaths among U.S. troops in Iraq.
So it came as no surprise recently when the Pentagon announced that it would probe the perplexing trend. Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations director of the Joint Staff, said commanders in Iraq were concerned enough about the spike in non-combat deaths -- from accidents, illness, friendly-fire or suicide -- that it had asked for an assessment by an Army team.
According to Pentagon figures, 29 soldiers lost their lives in August for non-hostile reasons, and another 23 died of non-combat causes in September. Compare that with the average for the first seven months of this year: fewer than nine per month.
The spike has coincided with extended 15-month deployments, one senior military official said. The military officially counts about 20% of the nearly 3900 U.S. fatalities in Iraq as "noncombat." It has officially confirmed 128 suicides in Iraq since 2003, with many others under investigation (and still more taking place on the return home).
Lt. Gen. Ham said morale remains high, but added, "I think there is a general consensus ... that for the Army, 15 months is a long hard tour. It's hard on the soldiers."
As I've noted repeatedly, the military releases little news to the press when a service member dies from a non-hostile cause, beyond saying it is "under investigation."
When that probe ends, many months later, the military normally does not tell anyone but family members of the deceased.
For more than four years, however, E&P has kept close tabs on non-combat deaths, and nearly every day lately I have combed the Web for details on new cases. Sometimes local newspapers find out about preliminary determinations -- including suicides -- passed along to families. So I checked again today on October casualties Vincent Kamka, Dr. Roselle Hoffmaster, and others.
In doing that a few days ago, I discovered what happened to Cpt. Erik T. Garoutte of Santee, Ca. He was a Marine who died last month at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune he "was exercising when he collapsed. He never regained consciousness."
More tragedy followed: His mother, Donna Stone, also of Santee, had a heart attack after hearing about his death. The Union-Tribune related that "the family hopes an autopsy will explain what caused Garoutte to die."
But why has the press given this so little attention to noncombat deaths, going back to the early days of the war?
Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq vet and now leader of the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, has long shared my concerns and frustration. Rieckhoff, author of the memoir "Chasing Ghosts," calls this "one of the most under- reported stories of the war.
I've been pitching the story to people for over two years. A lot of deaths are taking place under questionable circumstances -- the number would surprise you -- and no one looks at them, in theater or at home. It's a broad research project, and maybe it is not sexy, but it needs to be done."
The Veterans Administration doesn't track the deaths, Rieckhoff says. "I'd like to see a study of how many Iraq vets have died under any circumstance back in this country," he declares.
"We have suicide rates tracked in the military, but once they leave it is untraced. We have argued for a national registry, if you have been in the war."
Nobody has ever taken the step of pulling it all together. I know it would be expensive, time-consuming, and difficult for the media, but it is their responsibility. They did it with body armor, with corruption, now with Blackwater. You could at least do a clustering, like around Fort Bragg -- look at the deaths of all veterans within a 100-mile radius. If we could fund it, we would, but our group is too small."
What is his theory about the recent spike? "We know that our people are under tremendous stress," he replies.
"The operational tempo is unprecedented. I met a guy in a bar who has been there eight times. He said, 'Thank God I am young and single.' "We can push them harder, but is it smart? I don't think it is smart, or is right."
The surge in non-hostile deaths does not mean just suicides, but accidents due to overwork. Soldiers don't have a union like police and firemen, Rieckhoff points out. Federal agencies "would have a field day with working conditions," he adds. Why has there been so little coverage?
"I know access to the battle zone is an issue," he admits. "And dealing with families is delicate, but you can still handle it sensitively."
But he also cites what he calls a cultural issue: "After World War II, a lot of vets went into media and could navigate the system. Now so few reporters have served. Many don't know the difference between a brigade and a battalion. Also there is fear of how it is going to play in the pro- or anti-war debate. But this is not a partisan issue. Either way -- get to the bottom of this."
American people don't know a lot about these issues. People abroad ask me, are Americans stupid? I say, 'No, they just aren't told enough.'"
***UPDATE: I received the following two letters in response to the above.
*Thank you for addressing the non-combat deaths issue. I’ve been struck by the number of people killed when vehicles drove into canals (Michael Kelly of the Washington Post being the best known of these). Another mystery you should call attention to is the medivacs of people for non-combat injuries and illnesses, which far exceed those for combat injuries.
Icasualties.org reports 24,912 non-hostile medivacs, which means the people were flown out or Iraq and to Germany (or perhaps other military hospitals). Some 18,741 of the patients suffer from disease/other (as opposed to the 6,171 for non-combat related injuries, presumably trauma).
Disease? Three times as many of our troops are being flown out of Iraq for disease than wounds in battle (6,354), and yet we hear nothing about this epidemic, or whatever it is.
Soldiers are selected for their good health to begin with and most troops deployed are in their 20s and almost all, other than the National Guard duffers who have been sent over, are under 40. These diseases are serious enough that the soldiers have been flown out of the country, so we’re not talking about colds or even the clap, which can be treated with antibiotics. And Iraq seems a little short on prostitutes and brothels serving the U.S. forces anyway, unless they among the “contractors” being flown in from Thailand and other countries to provide services.
So we have a situation where thousands of certifiably healthy young men and women are coming down with diseases of some sort that are serious enough to get them flown out of the country on an emergency basis. What’s going on over there? Also, as for stress levels, the U.S. Army concluded in WWII that 24 weeks of combat was about all anyone could take and still be able to function as reasonably effective soldiers. That is about a third of the current tours of duty in Iraq.
Edward Furey New York, N.Y.*
*I would defy anyone to say with any assurance that they know what the Iraq combat casualties are (under the traditional definition) or that they know of a way to calculate them. The media has made it a practice to show only the number of deaths. On the rare occasion that they show deaths and wounded they are hit with a barrage of letters accusing them of being anti-war. Lord help them if they ever reported a total casualties figure. Even the dead reported may be under counted. We just have no way of knowing from official figures.
No one can sit there in Dover and count the airplanes and the caskets. Its verboten.
Has anyone ever attempted to use Nexis-Lexis to count the dead in news stories from around the country? I t is obscene to count as a non-combat death a death that occurs when a military vehicle overturns in a combat zone-- and all of Iraq is a combat zone. If I had a son or daughter killed in Iraq in that manner I would feel that that son or daughter had some how been denigrated, that their death was not as "worthy" as that of someone shot by an Iraqi.
The media now controlled by conglomerates involved with the defense industries or dependent on favorable governmental rulings no longer serves a higher purpose (if it ever did). It is all too ready to go along to get along.
Bob Reynolds Orange Park, Fla.
--reprinted with permission
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Report Confirms 'E&P' Claims of Upsurge in 'Noncombat' Deaths Among U.S. Troops By E&P
Staff Published: October 16, 2007 11:00 PM ET
NEW YORK For several weeks, E&P has documented what appears to be a surge in non-combat deaths among U.S. troops in Iraq. These fatalities come from vehicle accidents, illness, suicides and friendly fire.
The military always states that they are under investigation and it is local newspapers that usually first get word, often from families, about what might have really happened.
Now today comes confirmation of these concerns. A team of U.S. army safety experts are in Iraq studying this trend, which has coincided with extended 15-month deployments for troops, a senior military official said this week.
Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations director of the Joint Staff, said commanders in Iraq were concerned enough about the spike in non-combat deaths that it has asked for an assessment by the army team, according to an Agence France Press report.
According to Pentagon figures, 29 soldiers died in August for non-hostile reasons, and another 23 died of non-combat causes in September.
Shockingly, this compares with seven in August last year and 11 in September 2006.
The military has official confirmed more than 125 suicides in Iraq with many others under investigation. "We don't yet know what may have caused an increase in the non-battle casualties," Ham said." That's why the commanders in Iraq have asked for the Army Safety Center to come analyze that and to map out the way ahead, to maintain focus on safety for all the troops on the ground," he added.
Ham said morale remains high, but added, "I think there is a general consensus, and several leaders have said this, that for the army 15 months is a long hard tour. It's hard on the soldiers, it's hard on the families."
NEW YORK For several weeks, E&P has documented what appears to be a surge in non-combat deaths among U.S. troops in Iraq. These fatalities come from vehicle accidents, illness, suicides and friendly fire.
The military always states that they are under investigation and it is local newspapers that usually first get word, often from families, about what might have really happened.
Now today comes confirmation of these concerns. A team of U.S. army safety experts are in Iraq studying this trend, which has coincided with extended 15-month deployments for troops, a senior military official said this week.
Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations director of the Joint Staff, said commanders in Iraq were concerned enough about the spike in non-combat deaths that it has asked for an assessment by the army team, according to an Agence France Press report.
According to Pentagon figures, 29 soldiers died in August for non-hostile reasons, and another 23 died of non-combat causes in September.
Shockingly, this compares with seven in August last year and 11 in September 2006.
The military has official confirmed more than 125 suicides in Iraq with many others under investigation. "We don't yet know what may have caused an increase in the non-battle casualties," Ham said." That's why the commanders in Iraq have asked for the Army Safety Center to come analyze that and to map out the way ahead, to maintain focus on safety for all the troops on the ground," he added.
Ham said morale remains high, but added, "I think there is a general consensus, and several leaders have said this, that for the army 15 months is a long hard tour. It's hard on the soldiers, it's hard on the families."
Monday, August 20, 2007
Ignoring increased risk of PTSD in redeployments at our peril
Forgive me for posting this all over the place. I don't like to do this. I've been invited to post here and on a few other blogs. Up until now, I've been reluctant to repost, however this situation demands it. This has dropped off the media's attention and no one talking about this now. The increased suicides and attempts are a direct cause from the redeployments. Here is something else that you need to remember.
While the number of amputations are double the number from all other wars,
Searching for quotes for a new video, I kept finding the report of the increased risk associated with redeployments missing in action. Why? How could a report like this drop off the reports on PTSD when so many of them are coming out? Is this no longer important to the media considering some are on their fifth tour right now? How could they just drop this from their attention?
Easy. It does not fit in with the illusion of the "all volunteer" Army, the Marines, the Air Force or the National Guard. Think about it. Bush keeps saying "well their all volunteers" and this paints a picture in our minds that these men and women have no issues about going back over and over again. It paints a picture of everyone happily carrying out his orders.
We are sending back seriously wounded people. We need to remember they are people. Humans not machines of war. What do you see when you look into their eyes? If they have PTSD, you see a person haunted. It is deeper than being tired. Deeper than being homesick. Deeper than personal issues back home. All of these things are insignificant to what is behind those eyes. It is not something to mess around with. It is not something to ignore any more than it is something to treat with some pills, pat them on the head and send them back to be traumatized all over again.
They may have walked away from the first deployment without PTSD. They may have walked away from the second. Perhaps even the third but the odds are a lot greater they brought the combat back home with them as surely as they did their duffel bag. They are being forced to play a game of Russian roulette with their minds and their lives. Every time they go back, the risk of PTSD is 50% greater to them. Yet as the media have been reluctant to report on this crisis, the report drops off to the distant memories of the people getting the air time on cable news. You certainly won't hear any of the people supporting Bush's delusion discussing it.
The next time you hear any more figures, usually low balled, remember why the numbers are going up and then keep in mind, sometimes they won't show signs of PTSD until years later. Where will the reporters be then? Remember when they came home from Vietnam and the media ignored their problems. Less than ten years later, local newspapers were reporting on them in the obituary pages and the crime logs. Twenty years later they were reporting still in these sections but then occasionally finding the compassion to report on the homelessness of Vietnam Veterans. If we do nothing right now, if we do not keep the attention of the media right where it needs to be so that they are taken care of, how many of them will they be reporting on in the obituary pages and the crime logs ten years from now? Five years from now? Later on this year? How many families will pay the price as they watch someone they love helplessly fall apart and die a slow death? How many of them will come home one day and find they were actually a fatality of combat long after they stopped wearing their uniform?
Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
http://www.namguardianangel.org/
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington
While the number of amputations are double the number from all other wars,
Nothing so gleaming exists for soldiers with diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, who in the Army alone outnumber all of the war's amputees by 43 to 1.
Washington Post
June 18, 2007
Ignoring increased risk of PTSD in redeployments at our peril
by Kathie Costos
Repeat Iraq Tours Raise Risk of PTSD, Army Finds
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; Page A19
U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring how today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health........
Searching for quotes for a new video, I kept finding the report of the increased risk associated with redeployments missing in action. Why? How could a report like this drop off the reports on PTSD when so many of them are coming out? Is this no longer important to the media considering some are on their fifth tour right now? How could they just drop this from their attention?
Easy. It does not fit in with the illusion of the "all volunteer" Army, the Marines, the Air Force or the National Guard. Think about it. Bush keeps saying "well their all volunteers" and this paints a picture in our minds that these men and women have no issues about going back over and over again. It paints a picture of everyone happily carrying out his orders.
We are sending back seriously wounded people. We need to remember they are people. Humans not machines of war. What do you see when you look into their eyes? If they have PTSD, you see a person haunted. It is deeper than being tired. Deeper than being homesick. Deeper than personal issues back home. All of these things are insignificant to what is behind those eyes. It is not something to mess around with. It is not something to ignore any more than it is something to treat with some pills, pat them on the head and send them back to be traumatized all over again.
They may have walked away from the first deployment without PTSD. They may have walked away from the second. Perhaps even the third but the odds are a lot greater they brought the combat back home with them as surely as they did their duffel bag. They are being forced to play a game of Russian roulette with their minds and their lives. Every time they go back, the risk of PTSD is 50% greater to them. Yet as the media have been reluctant to report on this crisis, the report drops off to the distant memories of the people getting the air time on cable news. You certainly won't hear any of the people supporting Bush's delusion discussing it.
The next time you hear any more figures, usually low balled, remember why the numbers are going up and then keep in mind, sometimes they won't show signs of PTSD until years later. Where will the reporters be then? Remember when they came home from Vietnam and the media ignored their problems. Less than ten years later, local newspapers were reporting on them in the obituary pages and the crime logs. Twenty years later they were reporting still in these sections but then occasionally finding the compassion to report on the homelessness of Vietnam Veterans. If we do nothing right now, if we do not keep the attention of the media right where it needs to be so that they are taken care of, how many of them will they be reporting on in the obituary pages and the crime logs ten years from now? Five years from now? Later on this year? How many families will pay the price as they watch someone they love helplessly fall apart and die a slow death? How many of them will come home one day and find they were actually a fatality of combat long after they stopped wearing their uniform?
Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
http://www.namguardianangel.org/
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)