VetVoice - Front Page

Obama Demanding Investigation over VA Email

Brandon Friedman — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:36:52 GMT

Senator Barack Obama involved himself in the VA email situation today by sending a letter to VA Secretary James Peake demanding an investigation into whether or not the Department of Veterans Affairs is under-diagnosing combat-related PTSD as a cost-cutting measure. Obama then requested hearings on the matter and, within hours, those requests were granted by the chairmen of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees.

This move by Obama comes after VoteVets.org and CREW produced an email on Thursday from a VA official--Norma Perez--in which she advised a number of VA employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist that, due to an increased number of "compensation seeking veterans," the staff should "refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out" and they should "R/O [rule out] PTSD" and consider a diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder" instead.

The story has now been picked up by the AP, the Washington Post, CBS News, the New York Daily News, MSNBC, CNN, the Politico, and the Military Times.

In his letter to Peake today, Obama called on the VA Secretary

to launch an investigation into the incident to evaluate whether Perez was advised to send this e-mail or give this instruction at the urging of her superiors; whether staff members at the Teague Center followed Perez's advice, and if so, how many veterans were affected by incorrect diagnoses; whether officials at other veterans centers have given some similar admonitions to staff members charged with diagnosing PTSD; whether affected veterans have been given immediate re-diagnoses and; whether this is an incident or a trend through the VA system.

You can read the full text here.

At VoteVets, we couldn't be more pleased to see this issue getting the attention it deserves and we will continue to follow up on our end. For further information, you can read more of our coverage on VetVoice here, here, and here.

McCain Promotes U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq--One Year After The End of His First Term

Chris LeJeune — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:46:01 GMT

I am beginning to wonder if Alzheimer's is kicking in.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain today predicted that most US forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2013, after having helped shape the country into a "functioning democracy".

Withdraw by 2013? Isn't that convenient. In other words, if we elect McCain, we can fully expect the troops to stay in Iraq for his entire first term. Only after his re-election to a second term would he be able to bring the troops home. So, regardless of what definition of victory we are using this week, McCain does not believe our troops can accomplish the mission during his first term as president.

He described his hopes for the scenario in the country by the end of his first term in office: "The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering form the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension."
He continued, "The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

So, we wouldn't completely withdraw. We would "maintain a military presence there" for the next hundred years. Besides, many in the conservative community are already reporting that the Iraq war has been won.

Several pundits, blogs, and politicians have compared the Iraq occupation to Germany. Among the many problems with this comparison, there is one giant detail that is always left out. After World War II, we entered into the Cold War era with the concern that communism could spread throughout the world. Troops were left in Germany because our biggest threat was from the USSR. There is no national threat from the Middle East as terrorist groups operate independently of nation states. However, if there were, we still have plenty of bases in the Middle East without building more in Iraq. Simply put, there is no reason for a permanent occupation. The Iraqi government opposes it, the Iraqi people oppose it, and so does America. There is also no reason to wait five years to bring our troops home.

I wonder when he would begin bringing troops home from Iran?

What's the Deal with the VA, Secretary Peake?

Brandon Friedman — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:17:48 GMT

Yesterday, VoteVets--along with CREW--released an email sent by a VA hospital PTSD coordinator that suggested financial concerns were more important to the VA than ensuring that combat veterans were properly diagnosed as either having or not having post-traumatic stress disorder. At the same time, CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine if this problem is widespread. The story has since been covered by the AP, CBS News, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, MSNBC, and the Military Times.

In response, VA Secretary James Peake had this to say:

VA Secretary James Peake acknowledged in a statement that the e-mail did come from a VA facility, but said it's not official policy.
"A single staff member, out of VA's 230,000 employees, in a single medical facility sent a single e-mail with suggestions that are inappropriate and have been repudiated at the highest level of our health-care organization," he said. "The employee has been counseled and is extremely apologetic."

You'll have to forgive me for not giving Secretary Peake the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm sorry, but we've just been burned by Bush political appointees too many times. First off, it seems that the VA has an email problem--or, rather, the VA has potentially systemic problems that are being revealed by some of the many caring and conscientious VA employees through the process of leaking emails.

Secondly, after the Abu Ghraib fiasco, I will always be skeptical of high-level Bush appointees who claim that the "discovered" issue is an isolated incident committed by an improperly trained "rogue" employee.

Let's look at the VA's email situation first:

Just three and a half weeks ago, CBS News released an email written by the VA's Head of Mental Health, Dr. Ira Katz. The email contained Katz's attempt to cover up the exploding suicide epidemic among veterans. CBS described the email this way:

And it appears that Katz went out of his way to conceal these numbers.
First, he titled his e-mail: "Not for the CBS News Interview Request."
He opened it with "Shh!" - as in keep it quiet - before ending with "Is this something we should (carefully) address ... before someone stumbles on it?"

Here's a copy of the email in question. You can clearly see the "Shh!"

After it was revealed in April, Dr. Katz testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, at which time he explained of the email:

"That was very unfortunate," Katz said. "It was an error. I apologize for that."

During the same hearing, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner (D-CA) tore into both Katz and VA Secretary James Peake, exclaiming with regard to the VA:

"What we see is a pattern -- deny, deny, deny." Filner said.

After that hearing, Secretary Peake backed up Katz when pressed by reporters as to whether or not he would demand Katz's resignation:

"I do not have any intention of relieving Dr. Katz," Peake said.
"So Dr. Katz stays?" asked Keteyian.
"That's my plan, absolutely," Peake answered.
Peake said the plan now is to sweep aside any talk of a cover-up and tell Congress and the American public the truth about veteran suicides.

About the same time as that hearing--perhaps even on the same day--I received the "adjustment disorder email" that we eventually publicized yesterday. That email, written by a VA hospital PTSD coordinator, was also wildly inappropriate:

"Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest that we refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out. Consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, R/O [rule out] PTSD," the e-mail said.
It also said, "Additionally, we really don't or have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD."

Here's the actual email:

Now with two potentially damning emails written within six weeks of each other, Secretary Peake stated again that there were no systemic problems in the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to suicide and PTSD diagnosis.

The problem from an outside perspective, however, is this: If we're seeing these two emails, what are we not seeing? How many of these things are out there? Is another one going to pop up next week?

This is why we're doing the FOIA request, and this is why I don't give Secretary Peake the benefit of the doubt when he says:

"A single staff member, out of VA's 230,000 employees, in a single medical facility sent a single e-mail with suggestions that are inappropriate and have been repudiated at the highest level of our health-care organization."

Given Chairman Filner's accusation of "Deny, deny, deny," I'm particularly concerned with the tone of Secretary Peake's rebuttal yesterday. It reeks of Abu Ghraib. It's the type of statement that seems to lay all the blame on a single "bad apple"--while denying that the organization (including its senior leadership) had anything to do with the decision. This may turn out to be true, but I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to those in this administration long ago. Abu Ghraib is a prime example of why to be skeptical when the higher-ups start blaming lower-level employees for seemingly major decisions.

The bottom line is this: I do not relish having to excoriate public servants like this. I don't know Secretary Peake, Dr. Katz, or the VA hospital PTSD coordinator personally, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if those who knew them said they were great people. But too much is at stake here. I'm sorry. There just is. And when I feel like my fellow brothers and sisters in arms are at an increased risk due to institutional or Bush administration negligence, then I will do whatever it takes to mitigate that risk.

We're tired of being shat upon by the incompetent Bush administration and a largely apathetic public.

If these two emails are indeed isolated, then the VA should have no problem releasing all the information it has so that we can put this issue of veterans care to rest.

Why the VA E-Mail Matters

RockRichard — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:00:00 GMT

I don't believe I've ever stated my official military duty title here on VetVoice. I am a Paralegal Noncommissioned Officer. When a Soldier needs someone back home to sell his car, I draft and notarize the Power of Attorney. When a commander has a law of war question, I'm the first person he asks. When a Soldier finds himself in hot water, I am the NCO sifting through statements, police reports and other evidence to discern whether and with what the Soldier can be charged. I research case law and assist my attorney is preparing for Courts-Martial. I interview witnesses and ensure they are prepared to testify at trial. Some say that a paralegal does all the work while the attorney gets the credit. I won't agree with that, but I cannot discredit it either.

Another part of my job for the past five years has been Involuntary Administrative Separations. In the Army, they are called "chapters" for short. What it means is that someone is getting kicked out the Army. When I was a young Private serving in Korea I became a master of chapters. I can still recite large sections of Army Regulation 635-200, Administrative Separations, verbatim from memory. Tell me what your Soldier did and I can tell you off the top of my head if and exactly how he can get the boot.

In Korea, I processed a large number of what you may have seen referred to in the media as "5-13s". What this refers to is Chapter 5, sub-paragraph 13 of AR 635-200. The section is titled "Separation because of personality disorder". What it means is that you are being separated because a qualified mental health professional has diagnosed you with a pre-existing mental condition. These were usually kids who either legitimately had problems, or just couldn't adjust. Whenever you hear of someone who got kicked out for "failure to adapt", it is usually a 5-13. There is actually, despite popular belief, no "failure to adapt" chapter. Usuallythe psychiatrist was complicit to the commander's wishes to get rid of a problem Soldier, and diagnosed them anyway. There was no harm because 5-13, unless there is other documented misconduct, carries with it an Honorable Discharge. But, again, a good bit of these kids legitimately had problems.

This was back during the early part of the Iraq war. Back then, no one deployed from Korea. It is still rare even today. There weren't units going to war and coming home again to the peninsula. Hardly anyone had a combat patch and those who did, more likely than not, got it in the first Gulf War. Very few had yet had the time to deploy, redeploy and PCS to Korea. Meeting someone who had post-9/11 combat service was extremely rare on that side of the world.

Two years later, I left Korea and came to Fort Bragg as an NCO thinking I knew everything there was to know about my job. Fort Bragg, however, was a different animal. Everyone on Fort Bragg had deployed. That is not much of an exaggeration. I actually became self-conscious that when I walked into the PX, I saw no one other than myself with an empty right-sleeve. Even Privates wore combat patches and CIBs. I continued to process 5-13s as they came in. Looking back, I should have realized that something wasn't right. Back in Korea, the 5-13s were almost always for Soldiers who had less than 12 months of active service. At Fort Bragg, the 5-13s were more for senior E-4s and NCOs than anything else. I can remember looking at their records and noting that these guys had two deployments and/or a bronze star and their command was showing them their way out. But I kept nugging away at separation packets, kicking Soldiers out at the Commander's direction; sometimes in double digits in a week.

When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2007, I suddenly found myself with more free time on my hands. Yes, I worked longer hours, but when not working there was nothing really to fill that time. I couldn't go out to eat or play board games with my wife. I couldn't watch Friends reruns. I couldn't play video games. So I started reading blogs. I happened upon a few threads about Veterans issues on Daily Kos. Some concerned issues at Fort Carson, Colorado with soldiers returning from combat and being issued 5-13s when they should be medically separated for PTSD.

"This couldn't happen", I thought. I have always had pride in my military service, my work, and what I still believe to be the most prestigious law firm in the world, the United States Army JAG Corps. There is no way my fellow JAG Corps Soldiers would give our comrades the shaft in this manner. I self righteously described who I was and what I did. I implied to fellow commenters on Daily Kos that they were ignorant. I spouted those passages I knew verbatim from AR 635-200. If memory serves correctly, I even exchanged heated words with a poster who went by the name of The Angry Rakkasan.

Eventually though, I realized I was only reciting the passages I knew supported my position and my integrity. I didn't insert the parts that revealed my ignorance.

In Army Separations, any characterization of service less derogatory than an Other than Honorable Discharge can be approved by the first O-6 in the chain of command. In the Army that is a Colonel, usually the Brigade Commander. If the Soldier has less than six years time in service, they are not entitled to any due process (i.e. an Administrative Separation board). The soldier receives an Honorable Discharge and can be at home drinking a Bud Light in 15 days. Essentially, as long as the soldier is diagnosed with a pre-existing personality disorder rather than PTSD, the Brigade Commander can just say "your fired" and Joe goes home, papers in hand with no say in the matter.

To make matters worse, a medical discharge can take over 12 months to run its course. I've never been through the separation process for PTSD, and the medical separation process is not my lane. But I think I can guess, with a good amount of accuracy, what a Soldier will say when he goes to mental health suffering from invisible combat wounds.

Doc: You may be suffering from PTSD.
Joe: My buddy said you guys told him he was a head case and he was home in a couple weeks.
Doc: That is a personality disorder, but if you feel being at home is best for you, we can go that route.

Now that is a completely fabricated conversation, but I doubt anyone with military experience will find it absurd. If a Soldier is having problems and is given the choice between a separation process that will last over a year or one that lasts two weeks, he will choose to go home before the end of the month.

So, Joe goes home with an honorable discharge with a quickness and the command doesn't have to deal with the Soldier. Everyone wins, right? Wrong. As I mentioned previously, 5-13s cover pre-existing personality disorders. That is, a disorder that existed prior to the Soldier's military service. Because the disorder is not service connected, as PTSD would be, he is not entitled to any disability benefits or VA care. Essential, this Veteran is now on his or her own in dealing with their scars of war.

This is why the VA E-mail discussed earlier by Brandon is such a disgrace. This VA official is trying to keep his hospital from treating the mental conditions which Service Members have as a direct result of their time in combat operations. If his mental health professionals diagnose claimants with a personality disorder, as opposed to PTSD, the VA does not have to use their time and money to help them. Instead, these Veterans who have honorably served their country in a time of war are abandoned by a system that they were told would aid them when they were in need.

This is why the e-mail is important. Early in my career, I committed sins of complacency and pride by processing 5-13s without a second thought. Now, I refuse to stand by and watch the VA aggressively repeat my passive transgressions. This is why we all must fight for adequate treatment of service connected mental injuries. This is why you must contact your elected officials and demand that action be taken. This is why we must demand that our Veterans' Administration be cleaned up for good. If we do not, we will all be repeating my trespasses against our own.

G.I. Bill Amendment Passes House; More Elected Officials Hate Veterans

RockRichard — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:11:43 GMT

More news on the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill today: The House of Representatives passed the new G.I. Bill as an attachment to the emergency supplemental. However, the supplemental funding bill itself did not pass.

Here are the Congresspersons who you can add to your list of elected officials who hate Veterans:

Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Bachmann, Bachus, Barrett (SC), Bartlett (MD), Barton (TX)Bean, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Boozman, Boren, Boustany, Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite, Ginny, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Calvert, Camp (MI), Cannon, Cantor, Carter, Chabot, Coble, Cole (OK), Conaway, Cubin, Culberson, Davis (KY), Davis, David, Davis, Tom, Deal (GA), Diaz-, Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Donnelly, Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Duncan, Ehlers, Ellsworth, Everett, Fallin, Feeney, Ferguson, Flake, Forbes, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gingrey, Gohmert, Goode, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves, Hall (TX), Hastings (WA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hobson, Hoekstra, Hunter, Inglis (SC), Issa, Johnson, Sam, Jordan, Keller, King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Kuhl (NY), Lamborn, Lampson, Latham, Latta, Lewis (CA), Linder, Lucas, Lungren, Daniel E., Mahoney (FL), Manzullo, Marchant, Matheson, McCarthy (CA), McCaul (TX), McCotter, McCrery, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller, Gary, Moran (KS), Musgrave, Neugebauer, Nunes, Paul, Pearce, Pence, Peterson (PA), Pickering, Pitts, Poe, Price (GA), Pryce (OH), Putnam, Radanovich, Regula, Rehberg, Reichert, Reynolds, Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Sali, Saxton, Scalise, Schmidt, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shimkus, Shuster,Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Souder, Stearns, Sullivan, Tancredo, Terry, Thornberry, Tiahrt, Tiberi, Turner, Walberg, Walden (OR), Walsh (NY), Wamp, Weldon (FL), Weller, Westmoreland, Wilson (NM), Wilson (SC), Wittman (VA), Wolf, Young (FL)

All the Representatives listed voted today against fully funding a new G.I. Bill by refusing to support its addition to the supplemental. The bill should come up for a new vote sometime next week.

In G.I. Bill news on the Senate side, Webb-Hagel was also added to the supplemental funding bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Evidently, Senator Larry Craig couldn't find a wide enough stance to strip G.I. Bill language completely. Instead, he piggy backed with Senator Dianne Feinstein on an immigration amendment that would create a process for undocumented immigrants to continue to work in the agricultural sector. Critics of the measure say it amounts to amnesty for illegals. I'm not going to debate the merits of this legislation as this is not the appropriate forum. It does seem to me that Feinstein is trying to represent her state. I do, however, disagree with her vote in that it harms the passage chances of our new G.I. Bill. I think we can all see what Craig is trying to do based on his previous comments. This is nothing more than his attempt to cram a poison bill down the throat of Webb-Hagel. The bill was also tacked on to the supplemental in Appropriations today.

If you are confused by all of this, don't worry. I am to. If anyone who has intel on this notices an error in my description above, let me know and I'll correct it. In the interim, Brian McGough says this should explain the entire process if we have any questions:

Email Shows Evidence of a Rotten Policy within the VA

Brandon Friedman — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:00:28 GMT

This is from a joint VoteVets.org/ CREW statement this morning:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and VoteVets.org released an e-mail obtained from a Veterans Affairs (VA) employee directing VA staff to refrain from diagnosing soldiers and veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
On March 20, 2008 a VA hospital's PTSD program coordinator sent an e-mail to a number of VA employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist stating that due to an increased number of "compensation seeking veterans," the staff should "refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out" and they should "R/O [rule out] PTSD" and consider a diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder" instead.

Here's the actual email:

Here's the deal: At VoteVets, we hear anecdotal evidence all the time from returning veterans that the VA is trying to cut costs and to save resources by not diagnosing people with PTSD. We hear suspicious stories about the VA diagnosing vets with personality disorders or adjustment disorders. But we've never seen proof that there was an organized policy within the VA, or that there were directives coming from the top to actually do this. And that's why this email is so important. This email--sent by a VA Medical Center PTSD coordinator--directly ties the diagnosis to monetary concerns and not to the medical condition.

As the vast majority of VA caregivers are superb, unfortunately, we need to find out if they're being pressured by higher up to give these diagnoses. How high up the chain does this cost-cutting policy go? Is this an over-zealous PTSD coordinator? A rogue hospital? Or is this coming from the highest levels of the Bush administration? We just don't know yet. But, given past anecdotal evidence, this email isn't the type of thing you allow to come across your desk without doing anything. And that's why we're working with CREW to take action:

This week, CREW sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the VA asking for all records pertaining to any guidance given regarding the diagnosis of PTSD.

One way or another, we're going to get to the bottom of this. This has gone on too long, and if this email is not an isolated incident--which anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it isn't--then the troops don't deserve this.

Treating PTSD in returning veterans is a cost of war. And if that's not happening, then someone needs to stand before the American people and provide us with some answers.

We'll keep you updated on what the response is.

UPDATE: If you know of a veteran in a situation like this who would be willing to speak out, please have him or her contact me at brandon (at) vetvoice (dot) com. Thanks!

UPDATE: This story has now been picked up by the AP and the Military Times.

UPDATE: Keith Olbermann talked about this story in his "Bushed" segment this evening. Here's the clip:

UPDATE: The VA responds:

VA Secretary James Peake acknowledged in a statement that the e-mail did come from a VA facility, but said it's not official policy.
"A single staff member, out of VA's 230,000 employees, in a single medical facility sent a single e-mail with suggestions that are inappropriate and have been repudiated at the highest level of our health-care organization," he said. "The employee has been counseled and is extremely apologetic."

That's what we're going to find out. Our FOIA request still stands.

UPDATE: The story has now been covered by CBS News and the Washington Post.

"Wide Stance" Craig Attempts to Draw Fire; McCain Still Sucks

RockRichard — Thu, 15 May 2008 03:10:14 GMT

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) of Minneapolis public restroom fame injected himself into the debate over the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill today. Normally, a guy who has received as much negative press as Sen. Craig knows not to place himself in the public eye with a bonehead move like refusing to support America's Veterans. It seems as though the Senator from Idaho has not learned his lesson. From HuffPo:

The Idaho Republican, who was famously made a pariah in his own party after allegedly soliciting sex in the Minneapolis airport men's room, announced that he would offer an amendment to the forthcoming Iraq war supplemental that would strip the legislation of Sen. Jim Webb's GI Bill.

For those keeping score at home, please add Senator Larry Craig to your list of elected officials who hate Veterans. FYI, your list should also include Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Really, these guys are worthless. Are they really telling us that with troops spending 15 months in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should not spend what it costs to fund OIF for a week to give every Post-9-11 Veteran a college degree?

The Webb-Hagel bill will probably be seeing a lot of action over the coming days and weeks. Specifically, the House version of the bill is due for a vote tomorrow with a vote in the Senate coming up next week. This, of course, is assuming the McCains and Craigs of both houses don't pull any more funny business. You'll probably see a lot of sound bites in the media from these human shaped piles of scum. They will attempt to make sense of why they do not support Webb-Hagel or why they are supporting McCain's worthless excuse for a G.I. Bill instead. The bottom line is that there is no excuse for either.

McCain's bill is just an attempt for him to own the issue. He wants to be able to say he supported increased educational benefits for us. The McCain bill increases the monthly benefit by $400. Webb-Hagel covers the entire cost of tuition at the rate of the most expensive public school in the Veterans' state of residence, again for the same amount we spend on the Iraq war in a week.

While we are on the subject of the McCain bill, let's talk about the Senator from Arizona. This is a man who is trying to convince our nation that he can be a leader. The leader of the free world, even. In making his case, he has introduced a bill in the Senate that is actually far worse than a bill that has already been introduced and has broad bipartisan support. Is leadership taking someone else's idea, making it worse, and trying to pass it off as your own? Senator McCain is actually trying to make a campaign issue out of his creation of something worse than a great thing that already exists. Remember McCain's leadership when deciding who you will support in November.

The McCain bill is a farce. Craig, well what can you say about him. He hates Veterans. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Something is Not Right in Anbar

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:51:08 GMT

Last week I tried to draw attention to the fact that things were heating up in Anbar. Today we get this news from Abu Ghraib (not the prison), a village 20 miles east of Fallujah--located halfway between there and Baghdad:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 22 people were killed and 40 were wounded in a suicide bombing Wednesday evening in Abu Ghraib, an Interior Ministry official said.

The report went on to say:

Police in the nearby city of Falluja said the mourning gathering was for the principal of a technical school in the village of Abu Minasir in Abu Ghraib, who was shot dead Monday. The principal's cousin is a senior police officer in Falluja and his brother is a leading member of the Sons of Iraq or Awakening, a movement of anti-al Qaeda Sunni groups in the area.
Police and Awakening members have been a target for al Qaeda in Iraq.

All is not well in Anbar. 22 killed and 40 wounded in what is supposed to be a relatively calm part of Iraq is a big deal. Given the whack-a-mole effect we've seen consistently for the last five years, it's plausible that this has something to do with the ongoing operations in Mosul to "purge and clean Ninevah province of all militants and their weapons and declare it a safe area." Or it could be unrelated to the "purge" in Mosul, as the same article seems to suggest:

In western Iraq, a senior U.S. commander said Wednesday that al-Qaida persists and that a recent increase in attacks shows that the group remains a threat there. A group of al-Qaida fighters recently infiltrated the area, went to the homes of 11 Iraqi police officers and beheaded them and one of their sons, he said.
Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the commander of U.S. forces in Anbar province, said it appeared the insurgents crossed from the Syrian border, talked their way through a checkpoint and then went around a town grabbing police individually.

Events in Anbar should be watched with a close eye.

Purple Hearts for PTSD?

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:15:00 GMT

Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he is considering awarding Purple Hearts to troops with combat-related PTSD:

"It's an interesting idea," Gates said about the possibility of giving the medals traditionally awarded to soldiers wounded in combat to those diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at."

Also speaking with Gates at Fort Bliss last week was John Fortunato:

John Fortunato, who heads the Recovery and Resilience Center at Fort Bliss, told the press service awarding Purple Hearts to PTSD sufferers would greatly help their recovery. It's a physical disorder of the brain, he said, "no different from shrapnel. This is an injury."

There is no doubt that Fortunato is correct in his assessment. I'm well acquainted with the ravages of PTSD on the mind and brain. Still, I think this would be a terrible idea.

First of all, imagine the verification nightmare that would be involved. To get a Purple Heart, witness statements have to be compiled. To do this retroactively to the beginning of hostilities in October 2001 (or, for Iraq, March 2003), would be functionally impossible.

Secondly, there would need to be a standard. As the fear of death or maiming can figure heavily into how severe a person's PTSD is, this means that a person deployed to Iraq who never sees or hears a shot fired in anger could still be struck with PTSD upon his or her return home. Would this person be eligible for a Purple Heart?

I could go on with other examples of how difficult the implementation of such a plan would be, but I'd rather open up the floor to you all. Do you agree? Or do you think Purple Hearts should be awarded for PTSD? I just got off the phone with Alex Horton, and he even suggested a compromise: Perhaps a separate award could be given to those with PTSD, so as to distinguish it from the Purple Heart.

Either way, I can see the arguments on both sides, but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks.

Army Goes From PG to PG-13 in Afghanistan

LT Nixon — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:19:28 GMT

According to a recent Stars and Stripes article, the notorious General Order #1 is going to be revised so soldiers serving in Afghanistan can engage in hanky-panky as long as the door to their residence remains ajar:

But the latest version of General Order No. 1 for Afghanistan, which Schloesser signed April 19, eases those restrictions.
The new regulation warns that sex in a combat zone "can have an adverse impact on unit cohesion, morale, good order and discipline."
But sexual relations and physical intimacy between men and women not married to each other are no longer banned outright. They're only "highly discouraged," and that's as long as they're "not otherwise prohibited" by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to the new order.
Single men and women can now also visit each other's living quarters, as long as everyone else who lives there agrees, and as long as visitors of the opposite sex remain in the open "and not behind closed doors, partitions or other isolated or segregated areas," according to the new regulation.

Certainly some would have an opinion about this matter, but the issue of fraternization within a unit is best dealt with by the NCOs in charge of the lovebird soldiers. I have no comments about General Order #1 and I really don't care, but the fact that this issue has been brought to the attention of a 3-star is disturbing. In a time of war, do leaders really need to be micro-managing the sex lives of soldiers instead of focusing on policy to improve counter-insurgency and cripple the Taliban? This episode highlights how making issues like wearing reflective belts and ensuring soldiers have "squared-away" uniforms has become the mantra of some elements of our leadership. Certainly these components of good order and discipline have their place in the military (e.g. boot camp), but not in the middle of the front lines. Can you blame the troops who regularly see combat for having so much angst when they walk onto an uber-FOB and they get scolded for not wearing their Army-issue PT gear?

Bush Comments on Crematorium Scandal

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:55:36 GMT

In light of the fact that the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon had cremated the remains of roughly 200 U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan at a pet cremation facility, President Bush made this announcement today:

Feel free to use this as an open thread.

(H/T to Matt at Headzup)

Afghanistan Vet Running for Office Smeared for His Service

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:55 GMT

Afghanistan veteran and Kansas City attorney Jason Kander is our newest Emerging Leader at VoteVets.org. He's currently a State House candidate for Missouri's 44th District.

Unfortunately, Jason is facing a problem: He's currently being attacked publicly for his service in Afghanistan by those who--for whatever reason--have an interest in seeing him defeated later this year. And frankly, it's disgusting. It seems that there's a bit of a whisper campaign going on in Kansas City to discredit Jason's honorable service--and it's not just coming from those on the Right. In fact, a good number of the smears appear to be coming from fellow Democrats, because Jason is currently in a tough primary battle.

Most of the anonymous comments are emanating from the message boards of a single website, though it is apparent to Kander's supporters that these rumors are being spread systematically throughout the district to reinforce the comments you'll read below. The rumors, like the swift boat-style comments, are created anonymously. I spoke with the Kander campaign and they refused to place responsibility on their opponents personally, but they do believe it to be a group of their opponents' most avid supporters. Many of these commenters call him a "phony soldier" or imply that he's some sort of war criminal because he is a Military Intelligence officer.

However, as the Vice Chairman of America's largest political organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, I can attest that Jason is neither a phony soldier nor a war criminal. Rather, he's an up and coming Army officer and public servant who has done nothing to invite these attacks on his character. Either way, here is a sampling of the anonymous slander Jason is facing. The comments below come from two separate blog posts on a single, prominent Kansas City political blog called Gone Mild.

From the post, Play Ball!! Quarterly Campaign Finance Reports Time! on April 15, 2008:
"You wrapped Jason in the flag when you introduced him on your blog, even though we have no idea whether he spent his time incarcerating people without trial. He has never even made the unit he served in public, which makes me wonder whether that unit might show up in some reports on collateral damage or the like. You just heap praise on the little patriot without asking."

That's funny, because Jason served with Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan, a unit that received the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the second highest unit distinction that the military bestows. More:

"A real soldier would still be overseas fighting. Ms. Butter Bar went to Afghanistan as a way to further his political career. Enough said."

Like I said, nauseating. This is what Kander--a veteran of Afghanistan who's decided to continue his public service--is facing. But it gets worse:

From the post, Candidates, Slander, and the 44th on April 17, 2008:
"Is Jason still in the military? If so, isn't there a good chance that he will be called back up for duty?
"I guess it is conceivable that he could miss the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions because he is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is this right?"
::
"So did Kander resign his commission to run for office, or will he be redeployed? If he is still in the military, isn't it highly likely he will miss one or more legislative sessions in his first term (if he wins)?"

"Highly likely" that he'll be unable to represent his constituents. I love the wording there--even though it has no basis in fact. This is classic concern trolling. The commenters are deliberately using Jason's military service to cast doubt on his ability to carry out his duties in the district. And here's another full frontal attack by a keyboard commando hiding behind his computer at home:

"My guess is that this guy is faking his war record. He sat back at the camp and drank beer while poor guys went out into harm's way. I lost jobs to people like that over the years."

Classy.

" I've heard him describe his service as being a Military Intelligence Officer. 'Finding the bad guys.' 'He questioned people', correct? Did he interrogate them? Did he recommend that people undergo interrogation techniques? . . . Did Jason make judgments and recommendations that resulted in Afghanis, and others, being interrogated? Well, if his job was to 'find the bad guys' then he probably did recommend interrogation or do some of that himself, correct? What were the interrogation techniques he and others downstream used? . . . Did Jason's actions results in Afghanis and other being waterboarded? Did he recommend people to be detained? Were these people in turn sent to other countries to be interrogated? . . . We know for a fact that human rights abuses have been perpetrated on Afghanis and Iraqis for the sake of U.S. National Security. Was Jason a part of that machine?

With absolutely no evidence, that reader is trying to plant the seed that Jason is responsible for waterboarding Afghans.

"Do the people of the 44th have any idea what the "psyop special operations" teams do in Afghanistan? Mr. Kander should provide documentation as to what he did and did not do . . .This is the area where people were grabbed and held without trial and some were deported against international law. It is the special ops teams that turned people over to contract CIA personnel for torture.
I am damn well sure that young Mr. Kander has some explaining to do. If he was associated with any of the wrong doing by "company" contractors he should not even practice law let alone write law."

Disgusting. The Catch-22 they're setting up is to declare Jason guilty until proven innocent, knowing full well that his work and the documentation that supported it are classified. As if there were any doubt, Jason has a full description of his job in Afghanistan and excerpts from his performance evaluation available on his website.

These comments that I've excerpted are only the tip of the iceberg. There are a slew of others, but I don't want to go overboard in giving them the satisfaction of reprinting their handiwork here.

As you can see, these swift boat style attacks have no place in civil political discourse. This guy volunteered for dangerous duty, upheld the highest legal and ethical standards, and he's being baselessly attacked for it.

To learn more about Jason Kander, or to help his campaign, please visit his website:

Kander for State Representative

We need to help push Jason over the top.

More on Transition Woes

RockRichard — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:28:16 GMT

The great end-of-service saga continued today. However, I would like to throw out a quick disclaimer. I'm blogging my transition progress for awareness reasons only. It is a pain in the ass but I don't want to give the impression that I'm using this forum to complain about my personal issues. What I do want is for as many people as possible to know the problems that every other service member who is transitioning is currently facing. To set my problems apart from them would be selfish and, honestly, quite silly. There are many others who are much worse off than me, and I am going to tell you about one here.

First of all, I attempted to make an appointment to turn in my Army issue equipment all day. Out of ten to fifteen attempts to call the Central Issue Facility, I got a busy signal all but twice. One of those, I was put on hold for twenty minutes before I hung up. The other I got no answer. The second call was at about 1620 hours.

In the early part of the afternoon I went to the household goods brief which I mentioned yesterday. As I walked into the Fort Bragg Soldier Support Center, I met a friend who I'll call Mike. Mike is in my battalion and we met on this last deployment. We were pallbearers together for the first KIA our battalion took. Later, Mike moved to the S3 shop and we shared many conversations in the head-shed. We arrived half an hour early and almost didn't make the cut to get into the brief. I met my wife there who had been waiting for an hour.

I want to make one thing clear: the Fort Bragg Transportation Agency is a victim of circumstance. The staff there was courteous and competent. In fact, they were the most pleasant agency I've dealt with thus far in my transition process. That being said, there was still one major problem.

One of the first items the briefer noted was the earliest possible date for pick-up of our household goods. Due to the high volume of separating Soldiers and Soldiers changing duty stations, the date was June 11th. This was perfect for me, since I leave on the 13th and had planned on shipping my stuff on the 12th. Mike isn't so lucky. While we were in the waiting room he told me about all the trouble he has had with his out-processing. Mike is supposed to end his service this Friday. He just received separation orders, which are required to clear any agency, yesterday. He has five days to completely transition out of the Army. Mike, a husband and father, now has to extend his enlistment and stick around Fort Bragg, just to get out of the Army. I saw Mike leaving the parking lot as I walked to my truck. He rolled down his window and informed me that he was on his way "to burn down the battalion". This was an exaggeration, but he obviously wasn't happy. Who could blame him?

Bush Finally Speaks to the Ultimate Wartime Sacrifice

Brandon Friedman — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:32:14 GMT

With the ghosts of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower looking down, President Bush finally admitted today that he has been touched by the true cost of war:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

In unity and spirit with Americans who will never see a child or a parent again on account of his policies, George W. Bush made the heart-wrenching decision to take a five-year hiatus from the game. He chose to make this sacrifice several months after the invasion of Iraq.

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.
"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf - I think I was in central Texas - and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"

In a just world, words like these would cause our nation's capital to come to a screeching halt. But not in today's America. In today's world, sacrifice is defined in terms of not being able to afford a Hummer; of having to see a few images of war on TV; and of giving up golf.

If past Commanders-in-Chief were alive, they'd wretch at such a statement from this wartime "leader." Imagine Washington at Valley Forge. Imagine Lincoln on the eve of the Civil War. Imagine what Truman went through in August 1945. And then listen to this asshole:

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Of course, George Bush, Sr.--a combat veteran himself--was never so crass when he made the decision in 1991 to commit the most troops to combat since Vietnam. And if he wasn't ashamed of his son before, I think it's pretty safe to assume he will be now.

As are we all.

UPDATE: Warren Street at Blue Girl, Red State says that Bush is lying about why he quit golf:

Actually, it is far more likely that Bush quit playing golf because he was suffering from knee problems throughout the latter half of 2003.

Street then links to a CBS News article published in December 2003:

Bush, 57, will have an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) test on Thursday, Dec. 18. The body-scanning device enables doctors to see internal organs in 3D.
The MRI is being performed on the advice of the President's regular White House physician. Last summer, Bush suffered a minor muscle tear in his right calf and that injury, along with aching knees, forced him to abandon his running routine. The calf strain healed by August when he had his annual physical, but the president said in September that he suspected he had a meniscus tear.

(H/T to Cernig)

UPDATE II: Bush actually played his last round of golf on October 13, 2003. This means that the reason he gave for quitting after the August 2003 U.N. bombing is dubious at best. More likely, he made the story up in a clumsy ploy to gain sympathy. In many regions and cultures around the world, this is called "lying."

Donald Rumsfeld: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Brandon Friedman — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:30:00 GMT

The Pentagon has now dropped the charges against the man accused of being the "20th hijacker" on 9/11. This has apparently come about because Mohammed al-Qahtani's confession was purportedly extracted through torture ordered by Donald Rumsfeld and the other political appointee geniuses at the Pentagon.

So now, not only did Rumsfeld fuck up the Iraq situation beyond all recognition while at the same time failing to capture or kill bin Laden, but he's also engineered a situation that makes it difficult--if not impossible--for American prosecutors to convict hardened terrorists.

Maybe next time we'll listen to the military and not Jack Bauer, huh?

Women in Combat

Brandon Friedman — Tue, 13 May 2008 05:06:38 GMT

From USA Today:

In print, the Pentagon's policy on women in combat looks like this: Women shall be excluded from assignment to most units "whose primary mission" is "direct combat on the ground."
On the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's policy on women in combat looks like this: Women risk their lives as truck drivers, mechanics and medics attached to combat units. At checkpoints, they do a job that men can't: search Iraqi women. They fire rifles and lob grenades. And when they are struck by the IED blasts and suicide bombers that characterize this war, they are wounded or killed just as surely as their fellow soldiers.
In other words, the written policy is divorced from reality.
In part because a few jobs - in the infantry, field artillery and special forces - remain off limits, there is a lingering myth that women are not in direct combat.
In truth, about 7% of the 191,000 troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are women, and they are doing just about everything they are physically capable of doing. That's as it should be.
The existing Pentagon policy dates to 1994, when then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin loosened what had been far tighter restrictions. By 2006, according to a study by international think tank Rand Corp., more than 92% of Army occupations were open to women. That's progress as far as it goes, but today the combat exclusions make little sense.

Here's my take: Every job in the military should be opened up to women so long as they can meet the same physical standards as the men. As USA Today says, they're "in direct combat" anyway.

I'll give a personal example: When I was in Iraq--back before Titan and L3 had started contracting locals--I had a female intel soldier (an Arabic linguist) assigned to my infantry company to act as our translator. When we went out on missions, she was another infantry~~man~~ woman just like everybody else. In that case, she literally saved our asses, as there were no other translators available in April 2003. And there's really nothing much else to say. It's not complicated at all: Women serving in Iraq are on the front lines and it's about time the rules, the law, and our society caught up to that fact. End of story.

I don't think you'd find many people who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan who would contradict this.

For more information on the current stupid rules barring women from combat roles, I highly recommend this Washington Post piece on PFC Monica Brown, who was recently awarded the Silver Star for heroism under fire (before subsequently pulled from theater for breaking those same stupid rules).

Just me, or is "Supporting the Troops" Really Just "Checking the Block"?

RockRichard — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:50:57 GMT

Once again, I have been too scarce. It seems odd to me that I had more time to blog when I was in a war zone than I do in good ol' Fayetteville, North Carolina. However, these are strange times in which I find myself. I have spent the last 30 days or so readjusting to life as a husband, learning to be a father, and trying to get my way out of the Army. The one thing that is apparent to me so far is the Army (and perhaps all military services) is not prepared for the situation it finds itself in. Big shocker there.

Allow me to describe for you the problems here at Fort Bragg. Over the last year, the entire 82nd Airborne Division has been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan for 15 months (save one brigade, which did a twelve month tour). In the first four months of this year, four brigades (about 3,500 Soldiers) returned from overseas with another due to come home later this summer. The problem here is that after all the welcome homes, the hugs, and the playing of "The Boys are Back in Town", many of these Soldiers are still stop-lossed and must transition out of the Army. Sometimes, as much as 50% of a unit falls in to this category. This does not include the Soldiers who aren't stop-lossed, but whose separation dates are approaching. Additionally, many of the services required for transitioning Soldiers are also required by Soldiers who are simply moving to a different installation.

When all of these brave souls return to American soil at once, they are all competing for the same services. The catch is that unless a stop-lossed Soldier extends his or her enlistment, he or she has only 90 days to out-process. We are all at once trying to schedule end of service physicals. This means that my appointment is five days before I begin terminal leave. The problem there is that it takes seven to ten days for the hospital to finish the paperwork. I must either stick around after I am out of the Army, or waive my physical and fight the VA for whatever benefits I may be entitled to.

My wife, who is staying in the military for now but leaving Fort Bragg a few weeks before me, attempted to schedule a transportation appointment today. For those not in the know, this is where a moving company contracted by the government comes to your house to pack up your belongings and haul them to your next duty station or to your home of record if you are leaving the service. She was told she must go to a briefing before scheduling the appointment. Too easy. The briefing is held once a day, four days a week. The problem? Only 50 Soldiers may attend a given briefing. My wife was told that Soldiers show up as early as an hour and a half prior just to get a spot in the briefing, due to the massive amount of transitioning and moving Soldiers.

Today I had my appointment at the Army Career Alumni Program (ACAP) center. This was a joke. Apparently, Congress has legislated that transitioning Soldiers must attend an ACAP briefing before leaving the service (I'm sure there is an equivalent for other services). Within the first five minutes, the woman giving the brief made it known that she had know idea what she was doing. She informed the group "because you have served during a time of war, you are considered Veterans". I'm sure you can all find the flaw in this statement. After this, she could have handed me a check for a million dollars and I would have ignored her. She no longer had any credibility. Maybe she was a Bush appointee.

The next item she addressed was ACAP job fairs. Apparently, ACAP has two of these a year on Fort Bragg. One last year was cancelled. Can you guess why?

Survey says: The overwhelming majority of the Division was either in Iraq or Afghanistan!

The first one this year was held on April 1st. On April 1st, I was sleeping in a white circus tent on Kandahar Airfield. The next job fair will be held in October, well over 90 days beyond the end of my service.

This isn't so much a problem for me. I've already been accepted to the college I plan on attending and don't plan on looking for a "real" job for a while. But I can guess how many troops are pushing through ACAP that do need jobs, and ACAP's methods to assist them are unacceptable.

But let's talk about college for a moment. Of the hour and a half brief, about three minutes was spent talking about continuing education. That was on a side note dropped about the Center's computer systems having some program where I could look up colleges in the city where I'll be moving. If I hadn't figured this out by this point, 30 days before I leave the Army for good, I'd be in deep trouble.

The rest of the brief was used to talk about jobs. There were posters and notices hung all around the center about openings at corporations such as KBR and L3 Communications. It was almost as if the Army was actually encouraging me to join the military industrial complex. In fact, the term "G.I. Bill" never came out of anyone's mouth the entire time I was at the ACAP center. Perhaps ACAP doesn't expect many Soldiers to even use their educational benefits. That makes me wonder why the stink exists about funding better education benefits for Soldiers.

The final step was filling out a DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist. We did this on computers provided at the ACAP center. The computers asked us a series of questions about services we'd like to have more information about. The computer used the answers to populate the DD 2648. At the end of the questionnaire, we were told that our counselor would give us more information about that services in which we were interested. At the end, I was handed a sheet of paper with phone numbers and told to contact the relevant party for any item I selected "yes" for on the 2648. Thanks for the counseling ACAP. Really, if I just wanted to check the block I could just print a 2648 myself and have my Platoon Sergeant counsel me.

I don't blame ACAP, hovever. ACAP is just like any agency within DoD, or DoD itself. In flooding programs like ACAP with Soldiers who must separate within 90 days, the Government is feeding the agencies rotten apples, and expecting their excrement to be fruit salad. My problems are not isolated. In fact, I'm sure anyone on this blog who has separated from the military has had the same problems if not worse. On the whole, our system of taking care of Soldiers has been destroyed by a lack of planning or ignorance to the overall cost of war. Specifically, it seems as though no one has given any thought to the returning Veteran. "Supporting the troops" has become one giant exercise in "check the block".

Watch McCain Not Support the Troops

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:43:29 GMT

In this video from last week, a sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserves asks John McCain why he won't support the new Webb-Hagel GI Bill. Watch as McCain dances around the issue, continuing to imply that those who haven't served six years on active duty--regardless of their number of deployments--still haven't done enough to have earned the full GI Bill.

McCain supports the war, but not the troops. He has it backwards.

O'Reilly Mean to More than Just Homeless Veterans

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:17:15 GMT

Back before Bill O'Reilly was known for his callousness and unconcern with respect to the treatment of homeless veterans in America, he hosted a TV show called Inside Edition.

If we had known then how abusive this ass could be toward people, we probably wouldn't have been surprised in January when O'Reilly blamed veterans for their own homelessness and said it was because they're "substance abusers."

Classy guy, that Bill O'Reilly.

UPDATE: Apparently O'Reilly has had his profanity-laden tirade removed from YouTube. That's okay, though, because you can still view it at Gawker.

UPDATE II: Crooks and Liars has it, too.

UPDATE III: The YouTube now works again. Somebody else uploaded it after the original was removed.

American Legion Breaks with Bush, McCain on GI Bill

Chris LeJeune — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:18:24 GMT

Last Friday, the American Legion released a statement in support of Senator Webb's proposal for a new GI Bill. As a Legionnaire myself, I am very happy to see that they are supporting the needs of veterans.

"When The American Legion championed the original Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, even some veterans groups complained that it would 'break the treasury,'" National Commander Marty Conatser said. "Instead, the GI Bill transformed the economy and has been widely hailed as the greatest domestic legislation Congress ever passed. The critics were wrong then and they are wrong now."

As for concerns about the cost of the new GI Bill:

Conatser pointed out that while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill, S-22, would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years, "it is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the sacrifices made by America's servicemembers and their families."

Then there are concerns about retention:

Concerns that the new GI Bill, proposed by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., would hurt military retention are unfounded, according to The American Legion. "This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military," Conatser said.

This is wonderful news. I know that this bill has been a top priority for the VFW and VoteVets for some time now. The more veterans groups who support this bill, the more likely it is to succeed.