VetVoice - Recommended Diaries

Carrying your friend on his final journey

Nick Suhr — Sun, 04 May 2008 02:29:50 GMT

On April 1 2006, my friend died. The night before, I had heard about a downed helicopter in Iraq, I had hoped against hope all day that it wasn't him, but part of me knew it was him, and the night I was driving home from dinner and I saw a cross outlined on a hill top in the darkness of the night and I knew for sure right then-my friend, Tim, was gone forever. His time had passed, well too early for me, and definitely too early for his wife, his baby daughter, his parents, his sister, and everyone who knew him.

I tossed and turned all night and at 8 AM the next morning I awoke to the ringing phone-another friend confirming another nightmare. What made it all the worse is the person sharing this news with me was the widow of another friend who died two and a half years earlier, on Oct 31, 2003. Tim had informed of Todd's death. Now, life had come full circle in a tragically, ironic way that tore me completely apart.

We all graduate from college feeling invincible, thinking that we can take on the world meet any challenge; stand down all of our fears. Graduating from the military academy, you actually get to do that, you get face fears many of your contemporaries don't or won't. My friends and I graduated with that feeling of invincibility.

It was shattered 17 months later, when Todd was killed. We had not recovered from Todd's loss, even after that long time, because it wasn't long enough to recover. Only the rest of our lives into old age and spoiling our grandchildren would have sufficed as a length of time in not losing another friend, another member of our group, our band of brothers.

But it was not to be, and on April 12, 2006, our group, now two of us missing took Tim on his final journey, down the center of the church where, not even three years before, he had walked with his wife, Katie, after they were married. It is always a tragedy when we lose our friends and family, but, we should never have to bury our friends in so young. So vivid are my memories of the whole week surrounding Tim's funeral, and I feel I need to share them-people who don't know what this is like, please bear with my meandering memories.

The day I arrived, I went to visit Mom and Dad , as we called Tim's parents, and when Tim's mom opened the door, I wrapped my arms around her and said one word, "Mom." That's who she was to us, to our group. Tim's family lived the closest to school and they were always there for football games, bringing enough food to feed all of us. They graciously hosted our group whenever we had a long weekend to get away. The last time I was in Tim's house, it was a backyard rehearsal dinner, held outdoors to enjoy the warmth of summer. Now the house, even though it was full of people, was emptier. You could sense the loss, even though Tim had long since been married and moved onto wherever the Army sent him and Katie and Natalie, their daughter.

A candlelight vigil for Tim at Katie's parents' church-sitting there grinding my teeth in a growing anger, because I am sitting there and Tim is not in his chair doing his job in Iraq, alive and safe. Anger because he should have been alive-had every reason to be alive, and I couldn't understand or accept that I was alive. Why had Tim not come home? Why was I there, alive? I would have given everything to gladly switch places, to trade myself so that Tim could be alive, to love his wife and raise his daughter. I was shaken to my very core and I had no idea how to deal with it, I was consumed.

Flash to another moment, the viewing hours for Tim. The casket sat there, Katie, Tim's parents, Katie's parents, Tim's sister and her husband, and Katie's sister, Ali, standing next to it in our line to receive condolences, a line snaking out the door and through the church and outside. I went through and said my respects and I couldn't leave-I went to the back of the room, and stood there. No part of me was ready to leave that room. I stood and watched every person after me come through that line, watched them all extend their condolences, watched Todd's widow break down in tears when she entered the room, helped by two of our friends to actually share a pain no two 26 year-old women should ever have to share. Katie holding Natalie's hand, bringing her to say good-bye to Daddy, something Natalie wouldn't understand, being less than a year old. The tall, form of Governor Pataki entering the room to pay his respects to another of his fellow New Yorkers and his family. I remember salving my grief afterwards in a brownie sundae at Friendly's.

The morning of Tim's funeral, going for a run to burn off frustration, coming back to take a shower, and there being no hot water. I could almost hear the silent snickering and laughing of Todd and Tim at having pulled another practical joke. So, standing in a shower of ice cold water, I couldn't help but laughing myself.

The church, again, for the funeral mass-practicing how to fold the flag before with each of us figuring out the exact way to do this correctly. 26 year-old friends standing around, practicing how to fold a flag. The only time a flag is folded this way is when someone dies, and here we were trying to make sure to do it in the most respectful and honorable way possible. But is this something 26 year-old men should be doing? I couldn't help but thinking.

Flash to the front pew of the church, sitting amongst my friends, remembering Tim listening to Tim being eulogized by the same people who were giving congratulatory speeches at his wedding, wracking my brain, feeling the full brunt of survivor's guilt washing over me again. I was trying to figure out why I was sitting here, alive, and suddenly I felt like I had been doused in water and it was almost like I had been cleansed of that guilt. I knew then that I would always trade my life for his, but my anger was gone, just an acceptance.

Standing up, moving to the coffin again, taking it down the aisle again, trying to be strong for those I knew who were shedding tears, family and friends and others who filled the church to standing room only. Handing the casket to the official honor guard who slid Tim's casket into the hearse, Amazing Grace being played by bagpipies, a sound I still remember as deafening to this day. Katie, after the hearse door had been closed, placing both hands on the window and kissing the glass one more time, a final good-bye shared as the whole world watched on-a moment so intense to me that it will always be etched in my memory.

Driving to the gravesite, two fire engine ladders reaching high into the sky, an enormous American flag hanging between them, a flag so large that it seemed to dwarf everything around us as we drove underneath it.

Standing besides Tim's grave, surrounded by hundreds of people, listening to the final speeches, two rows of four chairs filledb Katie, Tim's parents and sister in the front row, Tim's sister's husband, Katie's sister and parents in the second row. The breeze picking up, whipping around, those of in uniform standing at parade rest, then attention, then saluting, all in good military order. Walking past the casket for the final time, snapping Tim a salute he deserved, thinking the words of our Alma Mater:

"Well Done, Tim, Be Thou at Peace."

Too important for just a comment. This affects YOU directly.

TominMaine — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:05:10 GMT

cross posted to Docudharma, Dailykos, Turn Maine Blue and VetVoice from Military Spouse Press, http://www.milspousepress.com/

I began writing a response to NamGuardianAngel's article below this one, http://www.milspousepress.com/... and it became a MEGA comment.

I also realized that the information was too important to you as a military spouse to contribute as just a comment. I had to ensure it was read by the maximum number by making it a stand alone Editorial Page contribution.

Hopefully, what is discussed will never affect you personally but statistics, studies and history prove beyond any doubt that they will affect a high percentage of military spouses.

PLEASE do not wait. Take action. If not for your soldier, yourself, your family, then for the other military spouses who will be affected by this.
Our soldiers with PTSD and TBI deserve the same recognition, awards and disability compensation as our warriors with physical wounds and disabilities. If military standards for awards are written in a way that preclude them from getting such then they need to be re-written.

In each war, a new wound emerges - an injury or illness that comes to typify the conflict, says Craig Hyams, a doctor and Veterans Administration official who has done a study of war wounds. In World War I, poison gases damaged lungs. In World War II, radiation from atomic bombs caused cancer. In Korea, the intense cold led to circulation problems. And in Vietnam, Agent Orange led to skin disorders.
Military doctors describe Radhay's injuries as the emerging signature wound of the Iraq war. And they say the wound - called traumatic brain injury - carries many consequences.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...
Although in this article Agent Orange is mentioned as the "signature wound" of Nam, I would argue that PTSD was as much, or more the "signature injury" of Nam.

Like PTSD, TBI often has no external wound. There are probably far more soldiers who suffer with TBI without physical wounds than with them. The article below is from the Mayo Clinic & describes TBI without external injury.

A traumatic brain injury is usually the result of a sudden, violent blow to the head. Such a blow can launch the brain on a collision course with the inside of the skull. The skull itself can often withstand a forceful external impact without fracturing. The result - an injured brain inside an intact skull - is known as a closed-head injury.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal...

Great progress is being made in recognizing both PTSD and TBI in our wounded warriors. Unfortunately, many times with both of these injuries the symptoms are not recognized by either the veteran or medical personnel until weeks, months or years later. It doesn't matter when it is discovered, it should still be treated as a combat wound. Some organizations are offering screenings for those without outward signs.

Concerned that the most talked-about injury of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is being overlooked, the Hospital for Special Care in New Britain has started offering free screenings to veterans for symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury.
The hospital has begun sending out thousands of mailings to veterans' groups, physicians, colleges and churches, encouraging service members who were exposed to roadside blasts or other head trauma to get screened for TBI. The hospital screenings are offered by phone or over the Internet and direct veterans who report symptoms of TBI to seek further evaluation at the Veterans Administration hospital in West Haven.

http://www.courant.com/news/lo...

Often our soldiers have both TBI and PTSD with and without bodily injury.

We need to keep pushing congress/senate/media/press to discuss/recognize these as wounds, award the appropriate medals, recognition and disability status.

It was not too long ago in our society that addictions were only discussed in private and in whispers. They were greatly stigmatized. Individuals with these were seen as weak and causing their own problem. This is now a common and accepted illness, usually without great stigmatization by those educated about this, as long as the individual seeks help and is "recovering".

Now it is things like schizophrenia, severe depressive disorder, bi-polar, PTSD, TBI and other mental illness' that carry a stigma and often prevent sufferers from admitting they have them.

PTSD & TBI need to be allowed to "come out of the closet", discussed openly, lose their stigmatization and sufferers not be seen as weak creators of their own injured minds. They should also receive the same award as physically injured soldiers and also paid the disability they deserve. IF NOT US WHO SEND THIS MESSAGE, WHO?

If a major government agency recognizes TBI and PTSD as disabilities then our VA and DoD should follow suit. There IS a government agency that recognizes them and pays disability for them. I know, TBI was added to the list around 2001 and it is the reason I receive SSDI payments, and also because I can't work due to it and the resulting mental health issues which almost all TBI suffers have. TBI & PTSD are on the list of ONLY 14 recognized conditions by Social Security Disability:

There are 14 types of conditions recognized by the Social Security Administration, including:
* Musculoskeletal System impairments and other conditions involving the bones and joints
* Sensory and Speech impairments generally involving the eyes and ears
* Respiratory impairments that effect people's ability to breathe, including asthma and various lung disorders
* Cardiovascular (heart) conditions
* Digestive impairments such as malnutrition, ulcers and other conditions
* Genitourinary conditions, including kidney disease and other disorders
* Hematological disorders such as anemia and other blood system abnormalities
* Skin Disorders
* Endocrine System conditions, including diabetes and thyroid disorders
* Impairments Affecting Multiple Body Systems such as non-mosaic Down Syndrome
* Neurological Disorders such as epilepsy, brain tumors, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis and Lou Gehrig's Disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis or ALS)
* Mental disorders
* Malignant Neoplastic Diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malignancies, and cancer
* Immune System Disorders, including lupus and scleroderma

http://www.workcomppa.com/lawy...

Like in a court of law, this shows precedence by a government agency. Precedence is a very powerful factor in a court of law and it could/should be in this situation. We should all stress this precise precedence to our congressmen and senators regarding our soldiers with these same conditions from war. If civilians can receive disability compensation for these then surely a wounded soldier should.

Millions of Americans receive SSDI (social security disability insurance) payments for these recognized conditions.

THE VA/DoD SHOULD RECOGNIZE THESE AND PAY DISABILITY FOR THEM ALSO. A key to this happening is DOCTORS diagnosis taking precedence over any desk jockey, commander, upper brass or anyone else overriding doctors diagnosis. The practice of doctors diagnosis being overridden regarding PTSD and TBI are currently very common.

PLEASE do not wait. Take action. If not for your soldier, yourself, your family, then for the other military spouses who will be affected by this.

YOU can take this article by me (you have my perimssion) or the article by NGA (I am sure she will authorize it) or one/all of the articles we linked to and email it to your congressman and senators.

It is simple. Put your zip code in the block on the right column here on MSP titled "Government Contacts" and both your congressman and senators websites will pop up. Go to their section, "Contact", there will be an email section, fill out your information and cut and paste any one of the three mentioned in the prior paragraph. Your information will only need to be typed in once as it will be transferred to the next congressman or senator.

YOU CAN DO IT NOW! Remember, 20% (at least) of military spouses soldiers will return with PTSD and an untold number with TBI. (65% according to The House Veterans Affairs Committee) http://www.military.com/vetera...

I ABSOLUTELY support an award for these conditions. Awards don't pay the bills. Soldiers with these conditions as recognized by a doctor, MUST receive disability compensation to support military spouses and soldiers families. The odds are quite high that a soldier with PTSD and/or TBI will not be able to hold gainful employment in the civilian world.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, CONTACT ME. My email is on my profile.

VA Accused of "Criminal Negligence" in Handling of Suicide Data

Ernie1812 — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:21:35 GMT

In yesterday's hearing before The House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Chairman Bob Filner accused top VA officials of criminal negligence in covering-up and withholding, from Congress and the American people, critical information regarding veterans suicides.

"If you have a document showing 1,000 suicide attempts per month, we have some real difficult issues. But you never passed us that information and you never asked us to help you, saying you had it under control," he said.
"You don't have it under control."

Dr. Ira Katz very feebly (yet, apparently good enough for Sec. Peake not to ask for Dr. Katz's resignation) defended his notorious "shhh!" e-mail saying,

"[it] was in poor tone" and that the "content was a dialog" about discussing the high rate of suicides, adding, "I deeply regret the subject line."

Congressman Filner was waving the bullsh*t flag and wasn't buying it,

"It sounds to me like you're saying everything is fine and under control yet again," Filner said. "You don't acknowledge any of your mistakes. I don't care what your figures show you; we're not doing the job."

CBS also covered the hearing...

I think the Chairman got right to the heart of this issue when he commented,

"The pattern is deny, deny, deny,... then when facts seemingly come to disagree with the denial, you cover up, cover up, cover up."

More Discussion of a Limited Attack on Iran (w/ update)

dm — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:21:21 GMT

A new report indicates that the US is drawing up plans for a limited strike on Iranian territory. The report indicates that the only targets would be IRGC training camps near the Iraqi border. These camps are thought to train Iraqis, who then return to Iraq to blow stuff up and/or run the government.

ThinkProgress reports that John Bolton really likes this idea and thinks this course of action is "prudent".

I pointed out last week that that a limited strike on Iran is not a very practical notion due to Iran's retaliatory and defensive capabilities. If this is the case, then why is the US planning to take this action? Here are some possibilities:

1. The Bush administration does not think the Iranians will retaliate. Perhaps the idea is that the Iranian government will want to avoid admitting that US forces penetrated Iranian territory and attacked Iranian citizens. The Iranians would instead try to cut their losses by pretending that nothing happened (see, e.g., Syria after the recent Israeli air strike).

2. The Bush administration wants the Iranians to retaliate. Although I'm tempted to dismiss this as a leftist fantasy, it is possible that some members of the administration are very anxious to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Perhaps they see a relatively mild US attack as the perfect provocation to cause a severe Iranian response. The Iranian response would of course be the perfect excuse for broader strikes on targets throughout Iran. This idea seems a little conspiratorial to me, but I don't think it can be discounted after the Iraq WMD fiasco.

3. The Bush administration doesn't really plan to attack Iran. Leaking details of planned attacks is a method to increase pressure on the Iranians to adjust their behavior. The media is being used as a tool for international communication.

4. The Bush administration is worried that the President lacks the legal authority to engage in a broad military campaign against Iran. While an essentially unprovoked attack on Iranian industrial targets would look like a declaration of war (which Article I of the Constitution says is for Congress to do), a limited attack on training camps near the border would look like an immediate defensive response to imminent and/or actual attacks on US nationals (this is more likely within the President's Article II powers). Of course, this whole idea is premised on the notion that the Bush administration cares about the separation of powers (hint: they don't seem to), but I think it's interesting all the same.

5. Last but not least, maybe we're taking this too seriously. Maybe the plans discussed in the article are normal contingency plans that the Pentagon or CENTCOM drafts every day.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...

Update: ThinkProgress is running new video of Bolton on Fox News. He suggests that the administration thinks a limited strike is possible because Iran would not risk prompting an escalation by retaliating (as discussed in paragraph (1) above). He also suggests that the attack on Iran would be a defense against an actual and immediate threat to US troops in Iraq, which probably relates to paragraph (4) above. He then goes on to say that a limited attack on Iran would not be "provocative", which is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

Fallen Soldiers Treated Like Dogs, To Save A Dollar

Colonel "Joe" USAR — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:41:36 GMT

Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls it "insensitive," I call it something else:

The Pentagon is recommending changes in the handling of troops' remains, after it was revealed that a crematorium contracted by the military handles both human and animal cremations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Unfortunately under this Administration the responsible parties will move on to their next duty station with a Letter of Commendation because they "saved" a few dollars.