"You Shouldn't Let Men in the Military"

by: Kayla Williams

Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 20:47:15 PM EST

Clearly, men don't belong in the military.

Ridiculous, right?

Of course it is. These are individual men who committed crimes and were punished accordingly. No one with any sense whatsoever extrapolates their actions into an indictment of all men serving in the military. And yet, when some women get pregnant (accidentally or on purpose) and are unable to deploy (or must be sent home from deployment), there are some who argue that because of this, women should not be in combat. There are still people who claim women shouldn't be in the military at all.

Let's take a look at some of their reasons, and see if any of them hold up.  

1. The Hygiene Hypothesis: According to the Hygiene Hypothesis, because women have menstrual cycles and, you know, scary womanly genitals, we supposedly cannot survive in the field. (Some research indicates that uncircumcised men are more prone to certain problems - should they be banned from the military?) I'm not entirely sure how the people who make this argument think the entire human species survived and thrived for hundreds of thousands of years before indoor plumbing was developed - or how they think that women in the developing world are able to not only stay alive but even reproduce without it today - but this is just silly. Baby wipes clean vaginas, penises, and anuses equally well - that's why people use them on both male and female babies. And women who don't want to deal with the hassle of monthly menstrual cycles can use hormonal birth control to reduce their frequency.

2. The Weakness Hypothesis: This one argues that women are simply too physically weak to handle the strenuous demands of military service. Well, I'm sure some are. So are some men. (Sadly, a growing number of young people are in such bad physical condition that they cannot enlist - that's what happens when people play video games instead of sports.) Proper physical conditioning helps people add muscle and burn fat, get faster and stronger. Women can run fast or far and lift heavy weights after training up for those tasks - just as men must do. There are military jobs that do require more strength or stamina than others - and every single person in those jobs should be held to those standards. Strength is often (though not always) correlated with size - a fit man who weighs 100 pounds will generally struggle to carry a 50 pound rucksack more than a fit 200 pound man will. And yes, women tend to be smaller than men. But that is not an argument for keeping women out of the military; that is an argument for having strict standards of size, weight, and physical fitness. (Oh, wait - we already do! If the argument is that those are wrong, make the argument that they should be modified.) As for the claim that a woman who weighs 125 pounds can't carry or drag a 200 pound man to safety, that's nonsense. We get trained on proper drag and carry techniques, and (back when I weighed 125) I was able to drag and carry a 200 pound man the required distance.

3. The Knight Hypothesis: According to this theory, men are such noble knights that if a woman they are serving alongside is endangered or injured, men will forget all their military training and abandon the mission in order to protect the woman. A few things: the bond between male troops is strong, the will to live is powerful, and fear can be paralyzing. The military spends a great deal of time training and drilling on how to react in a crisis so that people stay focused and respond appropriately. This allows troops to attack or defend against overwhelming odds, and enables them to return fire rather than fleeing, or secure a perimeter while trusting that the medic is treating their wounded comrades.

Some men are willing to sacrifice their lives to save their comrades; those who do so may receive our nation's highest recognition, the Medal of Honor. Would that sacrifice be less honorable if one of the fellow troops were female?

4. The Lecher Hypothesis: This theory, conversely, argues that men are such awful pigs that they won't be able to concentrate on their missions because the presence of females will make men think only and always of sex. Or abandon their posts to have sex. Or fight one another over the privilege of having sex with the (assumed willing) females. Basically, that the sexual urge is so overwhelmingly powerful, and our troops so unprofessional, that all discipline will be abandoned. (Apparently this is not, however, an argument against having female contractors around.) Discipline, training, and leadership matter. People can't be trained not to have sexual urges. But those urges don't lead automatically to inappropriate behavior - people don't rut in the streets like animals, and office buildings where men and women work together do not become brothels.

5. The No-Need Hypothesis: Some people posit that the military doesn't need women, there are enough willing and able men to get the job done. This was not true during World War II, when military leaders quickly came to support the WAAC (later WAC) because they had such a desperate need for qualified personnel. And it is certainly not true in this era of the all-volunteer force: the Army was forced to lower its standards after missing recruiting goals. Of course, many things have an impact on recruiting (no problems meeting recruiting targets since the economy tanked!). Women make up over 15% of the total force, and required end strength could not be met if they were banned without resorting to the draft or significantly dropping standards - both unpalatable options when there are qualified women ready and willing to serve.

I will address other objections soon.

Sex Happens

by: Kayla Williams

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:30:37 AM EST

But the reality is that humans do have sex. The Army even lets married soldiers live together in Iraq. Condoms are sold at the PX. And - tragically - nonconsensual sex happens too; the DoD reports that reports of sexual assaults are on the rise, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

When sex happens, so can pregnancy. Some cite this as a reason that women should not be allowed to go to combat. Absurdly, though, military women have been denied access to emergency contraception (EC).* Even though the DoD initially put EC on its Basic Care Formulary (medications that must be stocked at all MTFs), it was removed after pressure from the Bush administration.  

Now, there is a chance to right this wrong. Yesterday, Senator Al Franken introduced the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act in the Senate, supported by Senator Olympia Snowe. "This bipartisan bill would guarantee that servicewomen stationed overseas have timely access to emergency contraception (EC)." (Read more details in the NARAL Pro-Choice America press release.) A version has also been introduced in the House.

Contact your elected representatives today and urge them to support the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act. Military women deserve access to emergency contraception - especially those who have experienced sexual assault.  

*As NARAL explains, "EC is a concentrated dose of ordinary birth-control pills that can dramatically reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant if taken soon after sex. EC does not cause abortion; rather it is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy."

[Note: This post was updated to note that reports of sexual assault have risen; sexual assault is often unreported so actual rates are difficult to track.]

How to Lose the War on Terror

by: Kayla Williams

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 15:56:23 PM EST

asserted that Islam is "not a religion" but a "violent political system" and that those who practice it should be treated like members of a communist of fascist party.

This is not only ridiculous but also downright dangerous. In the wake of September 11th, President Bush drew a clear distinction between Islam and the "Islamic extremism" of the "fringe" group that had carried out the attacks, al-Qa'idah. However, this differentiation was quickly lost as pundits and "experts" rushed to explain why Muslim terrorists had attacked America. Samuel Huntington was recast as a fortuneteller for envisioning the coming Clash of Civilizations, and his quote "Islam has bloody borders" circulated widely. In the years that followed, many have come to conflate wildly divergent Muslim countries around the world and ignore the fundamental importance of state, group, and individual actors.

For many Muslims, as with many Christians, religious faith is a personal issue. Even among those for whom spiritual beliefs are a catalyst for action, however, the notion of an overarching Islamist or jihadist super-structure is a myth: there are deep divisions between different strands. Transnational jihadis define their religious mandate in opposition to mainstream Islamists or religious nationalists, who are willing to participate in the political process and often eschew the use of violence.  Mainstream Islamists in turn consider the jihadis' violent tactics counterproductive (see footnote). Although Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and their associates want Westerners to believe that they speak for all jihadis, and even the entire Muslim community, this is simply untrue.

Buying into the propaganda that there is one big, scary jihadi threat, ignoring the deep fissures within and between Islamist movements, seeing unity where division exists, ignoring the complicity of state actors because they are our "allies" - all of these errors have led to poor decisions by Western policymakers attempting to combat very real threats. Overly vigorous responses allow the United States to be framed as anti-Islam, not anti-terrorism.

Using language which plays into the framework of a civilizational clash, casually using the terminology of occupation and crusades, speaking about the threat of "Muslims," degrading an entire religion, suggesting that we purge Muslims from the US military - all of these mistakes support al-Qaeda's propaganda and help their recruitment.

(This analysis draws on The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global by Fawaz Gerges.)

VetVoice Diarist Combat Infantry Bunny Interview

by: Kayla Williams

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:15:41 AM EST

Richard Smith on Marketplace!

by: Kayla Williams

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:32:39 PM EST

Close Gitmo on Schedule

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:55:34 AM EDT

Retired Lt. Gen. Charles Otstott was quoted as saying:

It is a huge recruiting tool for the enemy, and the best thing we can do for national security is to close that place, dispose of the prisoners in a method in accordance with our rule of law ... to hold that many people for that long is, in my personal view, a crime against humanity.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward and speaking forcefully on this issue. I agree wholeheartedly.  

60th Anniversary of Geneva Conventions

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56:38 AM EDT

This CNN article gives some examples of how important they have been in codifying the rules of war and allowing the ICRC to fulfill its role. It notes:

But in an age when conflicts are more likely to be sprawling, chaotic civil wars involving disparate armed groups -- not to mention nebulous and shifting terror networks such as al Qaeda -- some have questioned whether the 60-year old conventions still hold relevance.

Sadly, I have heard far too many people - including American soldiers and veterans - argue that the Geneva Conventions are no longer relevant, and that the U.S. should not abide by them, specifically because rogue regimes like that of Saddam Hussein or terrorist groups like al-Qa'idah do not.

That argument is abusrd. When I saw detainees mistreated and the participants argued that it was not as bad as the way Saddam Hussein's regime treated prisoners, I thought, "Is this the standard against which we want to compare ourselves?" Aren't we better than that?

I agree with  Philip Spoerri, the ICRC's Director of International Law interviewed by CNN, who thinks that the rules governing the conduct and status of armed groups engaged in non-international conflicts could be honed and expanded to reflect the 21st century realities of warfare and that enforcing compliance, rather than recodifying the Geneva Convention's core principles, is where progress is needed.

Rather than calling the Geneva Conventions into question, the fact that not all follow them only strengthens the case that we should. When we respect international laws and norms and follow the Geneva Conventions by  protecting civilians and treating detainees or prisoners of war according to its provisions, we show our honor and values to be in stark contrast to those who do not. We act in the best traditions of our nation, following in the footsteps of George Washington. We expose the brutality of terrorist groups willing to murder civilians to make a political point. We demonstrate by action that there is a better path to societies victimized by capricious dictatorships.

Today, as the Geneva Conventions turn 60, they are more relevant than ever.  

Combat Vet? Hate Fireworks?

by: Kayla Williams

Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:09:44 AM EDT

My husband decided to set some off himself this year (legal of course!) in hopes that being in control will reduce or eliminate the reaction.

Do you hate fireworks? What are your plans to celebrate Independence Day while not feeling freaked out?

New Site for Women Veterans

by: Kayla Williams

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:39:22 AM EDT

The Grace After Fire forum is now live! Please pass this along to any woman vet you know who may benefit from having an online forum in which to share coping strategies post-deployment or post-service, tips on adjusting to civilian life, or struggles with larger problems. Women veterans, become a member today!  

Report on the Martinsburg VA Hospital

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:15:38 AM EDT

Several years ago, I went to the DC VA hospital, and found the experience stressful and upsetting: it was difficult to find my way around, no one seemed to quite know where to send me, and care seemed cursory (though adequate).

Yesterday I went to the VA hospital in Martinsburg, WV in hopes of getting specialty care that my health insurance will not cover; they scheduled me for initial appointments at their OIF/OEF Integrated Care Clinic. The facility was easy to find and had plentiful parking. In the lobby, a women's bathroom was immediately visible and did include a changing table. The cafeteria was open and staffed with helpful, friendly employees. Although the majority of veterans in the hospital were much older men, being in a clinic dedicated to OIF/OEF veterans meant that I saw other vets my age, which made me feel less out of place.

Although I arrived early to my appointment, I was seen immediately. Unlike stories I've heard from female vets about other locations, no one questioned my status as a veteran. I got a thorough exam by a doctor, and sat down with a social worker and psychologist. The questions I was asked (standard/required) showed that they are alert to the possibilities of exposure to toxins, TBI, PTSD, and MST. Staff walked me from one appointment to the next, and physically showed me where the lab, x-ray areas, and Women's Clinic are located.  

The social worker asked what my plans were for the 4th of July, noting that many vets don't like fireworks (join the FB group "I'm a combat vet and I hate fireworks," started by my husband!). She not only ensured that I knew what services are available for me and my family, but also gave me the names and phone numbers of individual contacts. She confirmed that the VA does cover the specialty care I need, and will help schedule my follow up appointments.

A few negatives: The OIF/OEF Integrated Care Clinic is currently co-located with the Outpatient Mental Health Clinic. I asked about this, since some would find that quite off-putting; it is due to space limitations caused by ongoing construction to improve the facility. No one asked for any identification until I got blood drawn, and I do think they should have confirmed that I am me before initiating care. Some areas, especially latrines, were less clean than I would like to see (especially in a hospital!). And of course, I know that the plural of anecdote is not data: others may have had profoundly different experiences at this facility.

Overall, however, the Martinsburg VA's Integrated Care Clinic is a great model for making sure that OIF/OEF veterans are thoroughly evaluated and made aware of all the resources and benefits available to them. Staff were sensitive, understanding, and very aware of what all veterans (not just combat arms guys) of these conflicts are likely to have experienced. Through continued advocacy and oversight, I hope that all facilities will soon provide the same standard of care.  

Indefinite Detention

by: Kayla Williams

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:55:46 AM EDT

Under this proposal by an outside expert,

The president could detain only "an agent of a foreign power" against whom Congress has authorized the use of military force. The detainee would also have to be "a danger both to any person and to the interests of the United States."

In the first phase of detention, the president could pick up anyone who fits those criteria and hold the person for 14 days. If the president wanted to hold the person longer, a judge would have to approve.

The detainee would have an attorney and hearsay evidence could be used against him, though not evidence obtained through coercion.

If a judge is persuaded that the detainee is a threat, the president could hold the detainee for six months. At the end of six months, the president could go back to the court and repeat the process.

To me, this goes against some of the very values I was willing to fight and die for.

I understand that we currently have terrorists in Gitmo that should probably never be released because they would pose a clear danger to the United States and its allies. It is tragic that some of them can probably never be tried because evidence against them was gained by torture. This is a legacy of the Bush administration that we are stuck with - and I honestly do not know how it can be solved. But the thought that we might want to continue this practice disgusts me.

The argument that these rules would require "soldiers to collect evidence as they're being shot at" not only seems ridiculous to me, but also exposes one of the biggest dangers of viewing everything through the lens of the "global war on terror." What makes people on a battlefield "terrorists" as opposed to "insurgents" or even - the term we gave the Mujahideen when they were fighting the last foreign power in Afghanistan - "freedom fighters"?

How can we hold people indefinitely for posing a "presumed" danger? It boggles my mind, and violates my sense of what is just. The use of classified evidence to justify indefinite detention is also a huge red flag - a notorious case in Florida was based on "classified" evidence that consisted of ... articles in a newspaper.  

There are thorny issues that must be tackled to cope with those we currently have in indefinite detention. But we must not add to their ranks. Continuing this practice destroys our credibility and fuels terrorist recruitment.  

Army Suicide Rate Growing

by: Kayla Williams

Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:15:20 AM EDT

It is vital that more action be taken to stem this growing tide. Sufficient providers should be available in the DoD and VA systems, and ways to seek help should be prominently displayed (at this point, shouldn't a suicide prevention hotline number be front and center on the AKO page?). The Army should quickly work to urge people to seek help if they feel desperate, and reduce the shame that still surrounds admitting what is still seen as emotional weakness in the military.

When I started volunteering at our local fire and rescue department, we were all told from day one: "You will see things that will mess you up. That's totally normal - just call Critical Incident Stress Management, and they'll help you get through the problem. It happens to everyone, and that's ok. Just ask for help, and you can get better." Contrast this to the Army, where the philosophy was "suck it up and drive on," and reaching out for help was seen as a career-killing weakness. It is possible to normalize seeking help, even in physically demanding, male-dominated fields. We must address this problem before more lives are lost.

Righting a Historic Wrong

by: Kayla Williams

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:29:30 AM EDT

It is ironic that this recognition took place mere days before a Holocaust denier shot and killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in DC. Contrasting Acevedo - the medic who chronicled the atrocities that none of his companions would be forgotten - with the shooter once again brings into stark contrast how humans hold within them the capacity for compassion and cruelty, good and evil.

Drash notes that at the time one of the captives died a horrific death, his brother was just a few hundred miles away "guarding a POW camp inside Germany where U.S. troops treated their Nazi captives under the Geneva Conventions."

I have been astonished over recent months to hear the discussion over torture in the US degenerate into questions of whether or not it is effective. It may have been "effective" for the Nazis to employ slave labor, as well - but it was wrong, both legally, ethically, and morally. As is torture. We should not abandon the principles these brave men fought and often died for, and those who argue otherwise should be ashamed.

The Growing Needs of Women Veterans: Is the VA Ready?

by: Kayla Williams

Wed May 20, 2009 at 13:58:33 PM EDT

Here are my remarks from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs roundtable discussion "The Growing Needs of Women Veterans: Is the VA Ready?":

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for hearing me speak today.  On behalf of women veterans, I would like to thank you all for your commitment to meeting the changing needs of our Nation's veterans.

My name is Kayla Williams. As a Soldier with the 101st Airborne Division, I took part in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, and was there for approximately one year. As an Arabic linguist, I went on combat foot patrols with the Infantry in Baghdad. During the initial invasion, my team came under small arms fire. Later, in Mosul, we were mortared regularly. I served right alongside my male peers: with our flak vests on during missions, we were all truly Soldiers first.

However, it became apparent upon our return that the public did not understand what it is like to be a woman in today's military. I was asked whether as a woman I was allowed to carry a gun, and was also asked if I was in the Infantry. This confusion about what role women play in war today extends beyond the general public; even Veterans Affairs (VA) employees are still sometimes unclear on the nature of modern warfare, which presents challenges for women seeking care. For example, being in combat is linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but since women are supposedly barred from combat, they may face challenges proving that their PTSD is service-connected. One of my closest friends was told by a VA doctor that she could not possibly have PTSD for just this reason: he did not believe that she as a woman could have been in combat. It is vital that all VA employees, particularly health care providers, fully understand that women do see combat in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom so that they can better serve women veterans.

In addition to facing additional challenges establishing the service-connected nature of their health needs, women veterans may also struggle to balance their own needs with the needs of their families. Since women are more likely to be the primary caregivers of small children, they may need help getting childcare so they can attend appointments at the VA or pursue college degrees. Currently, many VA facilities are not prepared to accommodate the presence of children; friends have described having to change babies' diapers on the floors of VA hospitals because the restrooms lacked changing facilities. Childcare assistance, along with facilities in which to nurse and change babies, would ease burdens on veterans with small children.

Women in the military are also far more likely to be married to other servicemembers; throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), 51.3% of married female enlisted active duty personnel reported being in dual-service marriages, compared to only 8.1% of their male counterparts (1).  These women veterans must worry not only about their own readjustments, but also their husbands' challenges. The VA must consider the dual role that women veterans may be balancing as both givers and seekers of care. My husband was severely injured in Iraq. This impacted my decision not to reenlist, because he needed assistance that he simply was not getting. In addition, I was so focused on his recovery that I barely considered my own needs. It was years before I realized that as both a caregiver and a veteran I needed to not simply "suck it up and drive on," as the Army taught, but rather had to reach out for help and support.

When struggling to cope with invisible wounds of war such as PTSD, or when simply facing challenges readjusting post-combat, peer support can be vital. However, there are things about my experience as a woman in a war zone that my male peers do not understand. They cannot truly know what it is like to fear not only the enemy, but also sexual assault from your brothers in arms. They may be aware of, but not be able to fully empathize with, the challenges of facing regular sexual harassment. And they certainly do not understand what it is like to feel invisible as a veteran, as many women veterans do. It is therefore vital that the VA provide times or places where women veterans, especially those who may have experienced military sexual trauma, can feel safe and comfortable seeking help in a community of their peers.  

In order to best meet the needs of veterans, I also urge the development of enhanced relationships not only between the DoD and VA but also with those community organizations that are ready and willing to fill gaps in services. Public-private partnerships allow all of us to come together to meet the needs of our veterans in innovative and exciting ways.

Thank you for working to assess and improve services for women veterans.

1 - "Population Representation in the Military Services," Table 3.7, FY2004, available at: http://www.defenselink.mil/prh...

Report from the CIAV Conference

by: Kayla Williams

Mon May 11, 2009 at 18:17:48 PM EDT

This conference brought many of those organizations together to discuss what they have done in the past year and the way forward. I was honored to sit on a veterans' panel with Brian McGough and several other great vets discussing current issues. In addition, I was on a panel discussing the challenges facing women veterans with a representative from the VA and one from the DAV. I also got to attend a number of other sessions learning how to better serve the cause.

The best part, of course, was meeting so many amazing, dedicated people who work every day to improve the lives of veterans, servicemembers, families, and survivors. It was humbling and awe-inspiring to meet individuals who have been fighting this battle since Vietnam and those who are new to the struggle, including some who suffered grievous combat injuries and still seek to help others. This networking was invigorating and left me wanting to devote my life full-time to this work!

The only disappointing part of the conference was the roundtable held on the public day populated primarily by representatives from the VA and DoD. They spent the first half of the panel talking about how great everything is, how well taken care of all injured servicemembers are, and all the fabulous resources that are available. I got progressively angrier and angrier. This was to a room full of people who know damned well where the gaps are, because they work for non-profit organizations that fill those gaps! Organizations that provide plane tickets to family members so they can fly to see their injured soldiers, who provide mortgage assistance to struggling servicemembers, who offer therapy, inpatient treatment, job placement help, and so much more to veterans - because so many parts of the system are profoundly broken. Finally, a representative from Vietnam Veterans of America made a powerful statement basically calling them on their bullshit, and the audience burst into applause. That seemed to break the ice a little, and opened up a slightly more honest discussion about what gaps exist and how a public-private partnership might be able to fill them. I was pleased that the White House representative, Matt Flavin (a fellow vet) was receptive to input and honest about the challenges that lie ahead.

So a few notes for all of you: If you (or someone you know) need help and are not getting it from the military or the VA, check out some of these organizations are doing. If you aren't struggling at all, consider donating to one of them, or to VoteVets.org, so that we can all continue trying to improve the lives of our vets, servicemembers, and families. And raise your voice to your elected representatives - tell them you know the system is not perfect, and that they should encourage the VA and DoD to acknowledge the challenges ahead and actively partner with community organizations to ensure that the needs of our troops and veterans are met.  

On Torture

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 13:58:47 PM EDT

The detainees I saw being abused might have been guilty when they came in. But I am sure that after being treated the way they were, they walked out full of rage and more likely to attack Americans. On a larger scale, I believe that the ability of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists worldwide to use US treatment of detainees in Iraq and GITMO for propaganda has caused significant harm. According the Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair agrees that waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (read: torture) do more harm than good: "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world. . .The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, I talked to the Warrant Officer who was in charge of the Cage (what everyone called the detainee holding facility) where I witnessed detainee abuse. He told me that he had gotten the impression from friends and colleagues -- the Intel Community is a small world -- that those "at the highest levels" were sending out clear signals that detainees in the Global War on Terror did not need to be treated according to the standards required by the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war.

Well, the recently declassified Congressional report released Tuesday confirms this -- according to this New York Times article, the paper trail leads directly to Rumsfeld.

There have been lots of questions raised -- about the history and effectiveness of these techniques, the impact on those tortured, the larger foreign policy implications -- all of which are important considerations. There is, however, one aspect of the conversation that I believe has been neglected: What does this do to those committing the acts?

Some of those who participated in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (please check out that site -- it is totally fascinating!) struggled with their experiences later, one "felt sick at who he had become." Another said,

I had really thought that I was incapable of this kind of behavior. I was surprised, no I was dismayed to find out I could really be a-that I could act in a manner so absolutely unaccustomed to anything I would ever really dream of doing. And while I was doing it, I didn't feel any regret. I didn't feel any guilt. It was only after, afterwards when I began to reflect on what I had done. That this began to, this behavior began to dawn on me and I realized that this was a part of me I hadn't really noticed before.

In this experiment, "about a third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary, and inventive in their forms of prisoner humiliation. These guards appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet none of our preliminary personality tests were able to predict this behavior." That was an experiment - now make it real life, knowing that your fellow Americans, your comrades in arms, are at risk, and that you may be able save lives by pushing those lines - it is no surprise at all that waterboarding happened, that Abu Ghraib happened. But what has it done to us?

If soldiers -- or CIA personnel, or anyone -- spend months demeaning, mistreating, or even torturing other human beings, what does that do to them in the long run? How do these people treat their spouses or small children when they come home? Do they have nightmares later? Do they begin to doubt themselves? In all of the high-level discussions, the debate on whether or not these documents should have been released, let us not lose sight of this: those who were encouraged by our highest levels of government to commit torture, they too are victims.  

Going Back to School

by: Kayla Williams

Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 16:59:15 PM EDT

When I applied for my GI Bill benefits in 2006, I got a surprise: the amount was significantly different from what I expected. My enlistment contract said I would get the Montgomery GI Bill "plus $50,000 Army College Fund" - however, what that actually meant was "MGIB + ACF to a total of $50K." I felt screwed and betrayed - I mean I have it in a written contract! The misleading form, I was reassured, has been changed.

Then I found out that my school didn't care when and how I got my GI Bill benefits (monthly). In order to register for the next semester, I had to pay off the current tuition due by mid-semester. So out came the credit cards ... and invariably,  plans to pay off the tuition I had charged with the GI Bill payments got sidetracked by emergencies like car repairs. So the bills mounted.

And - since I had chosen to go to a private school - I was still working full time while going to school full time. All the benefits went to tuition, and still didn't cover it. There was nothing left for housing, food, or books. For two years, I was tired, cranky, and never saw my husband.

Given all this, I was thrilled when the Webb-Hagel Post 9/11 GI Bill passed. For many veterans, this new bill will provide 100% of undergraduate tuition at any state university as well as BAH for that area and an allowance for books. The tuition will go straight to the school, instead of to the student veteran and then to the school. That will go a long way toward allowing veterans to focus on pursuing their educations.

Private schools, though, generally cost significantly more than public schools. Under the Post 9/11 GI Bill, the VA will pay the highest public in-state tuition rate toward private school tuition. Under the Yellow Ribbon program, private universities can contribute up to 50% of their tuition expenses that exceed that amount, and the VA will match that contribution. (You really need to read all the details on the VA website, linked above, to understand all the details.)

I think this is a great idea - it can help veterans get top-rate educations, and expose elite students to veterans with radically different histories. Many of the graduate students in my program had traveled extensively, and had a lot of real-world experience. Some of the undergrads that I met in classes that were cross-listed, though, could really benefit from hearing views from outside the Ivory Tower. According to some of the horror stories I've heard from friends, so could some professors!

Luckily, the worst I generally had to deal with were idiotic questions. I did almost lose my temper at some 21 year old who was blathering on about how in the Army you only do what you're told, follow orders, blah blah blah. No grasp at all that NCOs and officers near his age are independently working with local mayors, police chiefs, tribal elders, and so forth with very little in the way of direct orders in the era of the Strategic Corporal. (Of course, their total lack of understanding of how privileged they were, if their parents could pay their tuition outright, drove me nuts - but that's a separate issue!)

According to Newsweek, those elite institutions will be deciding in the coming weeks whether or not to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program. Harvard, for example, has not yet "reached a verdict" on whether or not to participate. The VA has asked for decisions by May 15th, and so far only two have officially signed on (thank you, Columbia and Amherst!).

This program is a win for everyone. Veterans get great educations without sinking deeply into debt. Universities get needed diversity of experience in the classroom while the government picks up a big part of the tab. Please, urge private universities to participate in the Yellow Ribbon program. Especially if you are an alum (they want our money!), make your voice heard on this issue for all those veterans who go back to school under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The adjustment back to civilian life is challenging enough without worrying constantly about making ends meet.

PTSD and the Current System

by: Kayla Williams

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 17:38:45 PM EDT

Even as I have publicly argued this point, though, I have struggled with concerns. Is the public attention given to PTSD, MDD, and TBI among some returning veterans contributing to higher unemployment among other veterans by making employers wonder if vets make good workers, fearing that we're all crazy? Could the term "PTSD" make those with mild symptoms afraid to seek help because they don't want to be labeled as having a mental health disorder for life? Is the system as currently designed working?  

Finding My Voice

by: Kayla Williams

Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 15:57:16 PM EDT

And thank all of you so much for the warm welcoming messages. I'm honored to join the amazing group of bloggers who are front page writers on VetVoice, and I wanted to give a little more background to those who don't know much about me.  

Give all Female Troops Access to Plan B

by: Kayla Williams

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 09:56:23 AM EDT

However, as explained in a great blog by Nancy Northup, it is excluded from the list of medications military facilities are required to stock - which is "particularly challenging for women and families who are based overseas and rely solely on these facilities to buy over-the-counter drugs."

Northup also points out that preventing immediate, easy access to emergency contraceptives doubly victimizes servicewomen who are sexually assaulted, especially those in combat zones who do not have access to civilian pharmacies.

Former President Bush was notorious for his anti-science, anti-choice policies. Northup suggests that his administration's politics were behind the DoD's decision to not include Plan B in it's Basic Care Formulary, despite initial approval requiring all facilities to stock it.

I think Northup is right - and I urge all of you to join her in calling on President Obama to direct Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to make Plan B available to all our servicewomen and female dependents, because they deserve the same standard of care that civilians receive. Read her blog for more information, of just click here to send a message to the White House.
 

Veterans' Unemployment

by: Kayla Williams

Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 15:42:09 PM EDT

Admitting this publicly took years. I was deeply ashamed of what seemed a sign of my own weakness, my personal failings. But the news that unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is at 11.2% - higher than among our non-veteran peers - makes it clear that this problem is not mine alone.

In 2005, I got out of the Army and moved to the DC area to help the man who is now my husband, Brian. He had sustained a penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) from an improvised explosive device (IED) in October 2003 near Mosul, Iraq and was back at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We struggled to navigate the complicated bureaucracy involved in getting him medically retired from the Army for months, with limited success.

Finally, we went on a belated honeymoon, seeking much-needed relaxation. Days before our scheduled return, he received an urgent message: the paperwork had finally gone through (over two years after he was injured), and he was to be retired from the military immediately. When we got back, the lengthy steps involved in processing out of the military were rushed through in days.

I felt relatively lucky. As an experienced Arabic linguist, it hadn't been hard for me to find work in the DC area. I had a signed offer letter for a good job, and was just waiting for my paperwork to go through. In the meantime, my husband would get two months of "terminal leave" - his accrued vacation days - and we would still get his housing allowance during that time. Surely I would be working by the time that ran out!

To our shock, the Army would not allow Brian to take his terminal leave, and "bought back" his vacation days instead. Suddenly, we were prospect of making ends meet with only the two months of his salary, deposited as a lump sum with no housing allowance, and Brian's military retirement pay, which was paltry due to a bizarre method for calculating benefits. Nervous calls revealed no progress on a prospective start date for my job. Brian had applied for disability from the VA, but we heard of lengthy delays in processing claims.

Within a few weeks, we began to worry how we would be able to pay our bills. Swallowing our pride, we both applied for unemployment benefits. The amount was almost shockingly low - we could not survive on our combined benefits, even with Brian's military retirement pay and final salary, and began charging our groceries on credit cards. Qualifying for unemployment was itself a time-consuming, paperwork-dense job. My husband, still recovering from the physical and psychological effects of his TBI, struggled unsuccessfully to fulfill the requirements properly, and we later had to repay some of the benefits he had received.

Luckily, my paperwork finally went through and I was able to start my job (five months after I got the offer). We were able to survive on my salary alone until Brian's second disability rating process was complete and he began getting VA benefits. To ease this process for others, it is crucial that injured servicemembers have a seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the VA. No one should have to endure frightening months of uncertainty and insufficient income, as we did.

I'm less certain how to address other aspects of veterans' unemployment. Although I try to raise awareness of the challenges veterans with PTSD and/or TBIs face, I also worry that civilian employers may think that all veterans are risky hires because some of us do struggle to recover from mental and physical wounds. How can veterans advocates raise awareness of those challenges to ensure that all who need treatment have access to high quality care - while keeping media coverage fair and balanced in order to decrease rather than increase stigma? Is it possible for me to discuss the challenges I faced while readjusting to civilian society while also sharing the myriad ways in which my military service made me a better employee? In a soundbite driven media cycle, I hope that can we have a nuanced discussion about these issues.  

Being a Woman Veteran

by: Kayla Williams

Fri Mar 20, 2009 at 14:18:03 PM EDT

The morning of the event, I also did a radio show with Tia Christopher from Swords to Plowshares on KPFA. We were both amazed that the host of the radio show was also a female veteran, who was part of the first Gulf War. As veterans make up a smaller and smaller proportion of the civilian population, I'm always pleasantly surprised to meet another vet - and when it is a woman, who helped pave the way for all of us who followed, I'm thrilled.

Being there, surrounded by strong and amazing women veterans, was fairly intense. Please don't misunderstand me -- I love my brothers in arms, too. Truly, we have shared experiences that civilians can never understand. But women in a combat zone do face some added pressures. We must deal with sexual harassment, and be wary of sexual assault. Women have to keep their guard up not only around the enemy, but even among some of their fellow soldiers. We also face pressure not to report sexual harassment just because we "can't take a joke." Being with a group of creative, strong women -- and those friends and loved ones who support them -- was moving.

And then, something happened that truly shocked me.

An Army LTC was at the event in uniform. "I have to share this with you," he told a group of us. He explained that a local teacher asked her students to draw pictures of what the word "veteran" meant to them, and lots of students drew American flags, others drew soldiers at war. So she asked him to come into her class to talk to the students about what it means to be a veteran. But among all the other drawings, there was one that stood out.

The LTC pulled it out and showed it to us.

It was a drawing of a pretty, smiling girl in an Army uniform.

Mind you, as an Army vet, I have been well-trained in the philosophy of "suck it up and drive on." I can speak to hundreds of people calmly.

But when I saw that drawing, tears filled my eyes. I had to turn around and pull myself together.

Since then, I've been thinking a lot about why I had such a strong emotional reaction to that drawing. It's funny how some things just hit you... My twin nephews are really into the Army, and at first, they didn't believe that I was really a soldier, because I'm a girl. When I go places with groups of vets, I often have to explain that I'm not "just" a spouse or girlfriend. While I was still in the Army, freshly back from Iraq, this was particularly acute -- if a group of us went out, some well-meaning civilian would invariably buy the guys a round of beers for their service in the war, while we female vets rolled our eyes. No high-and-tight, no free beers...

I'm used to speaking out about veterans issues, and the special issues that women veterans face. Used to biting my tongue when I'm asked if I was allowed to carry a gun in Iraq because I'm "just a girl." Used to explaining that yes, women are actually in combat, they have died in combat, earned Silver Stars for their valor in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Used to being patient and calm and siting facts and figures and statistics to prove my points.

What I am not used to is having a little girl think first of someone like me when she thinks of what a veteran is. Not used to feeling so included, having our service recognized by an outsider without prompting, being ... accepted.

So thank you, Isha, for your amazing drawing - and for all the hope it symbolizes for me. Maybe in the future, a similar drawing won't come as such a beautiful shock to a woman veteran who comes after me.  

Time to Repeal DADT

by: Kayla Williams

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 09:37:20 AM EDT

At my permanent duty station, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), there was at least one gay woman in my unit. She was discreet, but her sexuality was a fairly open secret. I never saw this affect unit cohesion or morale negatively. As we prepared for war, her ability to do her job was all that mattered.

Once we were actually on the ground in Iraq, sexual preferences seemed wildly unimportant compared to the rigors of combat deployment. People were trying to kill us; we slept under the open sky and dug holes in the ground for toilets. Getting the job done and going home alive took precedence over petty concerns.

Some might argue that my unit was different because I was Military Intelligence - we had females, unlike combat arms units, and our primary mission was combat support. But my husband, who was in the Artillery, told me that one of the men in his unit admitted he was gay while they were in Iraq. The leaderships' response? "That's nice. Go on patrol." Again: getting the mission accomplished was the primary concern. We simply could not afford to lose good soldiers for bad reasons.

Intolerance of homosexuality is often rooted in religious views. But just as we would not allow the minority opinion of some extremists that women should not be allowed to wear pants to prevent women from serving in the military at all, we must not allow the homophobia of the few to dictate policy on this issue. Society at large has become more accepting of homosexuality, and the military reflects society. Long-term engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq has left our military overextended. Now more than ever, we cannot afford  to exclude those who want to serve our nation from military service simply because of their sexual orientation.

These are the reasons I believe it is time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm going to the SLDN Rally today, and hope to see many others supporting this change and showing solidarity.

Suicide

by: Kayla Williams

Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 15:04:57 PM EST

The gun is heavy in my hand, cold, solid. I sit on the edge of my bathtub and stare at it. The door is shut and I am alone. I can hear my own breathing, uneven.

This I can control.

It feels like the only thing I can control. I can't control my anger, which flares up unexpectedly, making me lash out at those closest to me. I can't control the moments when my boyfriend, who sustained a TBI in Iraq and has severe PTSD, will suddenly turn cold. His face goes blank and there is suddenly no reaching him, he is lost in his own rage and isolation. I can't control whether or not the Army will stop-loss me, or let me out and then call me back on IRR, and send me back to Iraq - back to another year with no control over where I sleep, what I eat, if rockets will fall on me while I shit, if an IED will blow off my limbs.

I can't control the memories that suddenly, with no warning, invade my consciousness: images of men screaming, thrashing, bleeding on the ground. I can't control that the smell of diesel makes me feel like I'm in Iraq again. I can't control my physical reactions, swerving to avoid trash in the road, flinching at sudden noises.

I couldn't control myself when I was driving on a back country road, heard a shot, drove off the road, and suddenly burst into tears. I can't control my dreams, can't even remember them, but I know they must be bad because I awaken drenched in sweat, heart pounding.

I can barely control myself in public, dealing with civilians who can never understand. Can barely bite my tongue when they ask, "What was it really like?"- can barely keep from telling them and watching them cringe.

But this, this I could control. This gun, this choice. It offers me a way out, and freedom from the fear that nothing will change.

I can't get help. Can't imagine going to my Chain of Command - to what? To be put on public, humiliating suicide watch, sleeping in front of the CQ with no shoelaces or belt? I can't admit these feelings of weakness in front of my leaders or - worse - my soldiers. Can't own up to the shame of not knowing if I can do it, take it, keep going at all. Can't talk to my friends from before - can't even conceive of explaining the war to them; I'm not who they used to know. I can't burden my family with this, they already walk on eggshells around me, maybe already think I'm crazy. I can't let everyone down and look them in the eyes after.

I tried getting help already. I went to a civilian psychologist who told me I didn't have PTSD, I had OCD and maybe bipolar disorder. She sent me to the Army psychiatrist - the single psychiatrist for the entire division - to get antidepressants, because how I reacted to them would confirm her diagnosis. I sat in the waiting room, painfully aware of my uniform and visible rank, feeling my cheeks burn as I listened to the specialists behind the counter crack jokes about the last patient. Went into this Major's office and tried to explain my fears - that I would never readjust, never make it in the civilian world. Shoulders stiff, tears leaked down my face. He snorted derisively, "Well, you'll definitely never make it in the civilian world if you start crying all the time." I never went back. The pills made my mouth so dry, I felt like I would pass out on long runs, so I quit taking them.

I sit and stare at the gun. This is mine, my choice, my way out, my freedom, my escape from fear and hopelessness and desperation.

Brian knocks on the door. "Kayla, are you ok in there?"

"Yeah. Give me a minute." My voice cracks.

I imagine what they will go through, Brian and my roommate, dealing with blood and brains and death on my bathroom floor. Imagine my father - I'm his only surviving child. The only time I saw him cry as a child was when my aunt killed herself. Fuck. FUCK.

I can't do this. Not now, not today. But the option is there. If it gets worse. If nothing gets better. I could control my end, if nothing else.

It was 2004.

I only deployed once.

We don't own a gun anymore.

Salvation

I don't want your pity. And I really don't want to talk about my feelings. In fact, I never wanted to even admit to my incident in the bathroom with the gun. Because I found my way, got control, healed. So did my boyfriend, who is now my husband.

But the news about the alarming suicide rate in the Army is forcing me to come clean about my secret shame and weakness. I didn't follow through, but I understand the urge. Understand the desperation and isolation. I'll admit that I considered suicide if it might keep another soldier from carrying through.

Those coming back now may have endured multiple deployments. Not just soldiers but their families are feeling the strain, and the divorce rate is climbing. The bad economy, with rising foreclosures and increasing unemployment, puts added pressure on soldiers as well - they may be facing financial crises, and feel they don't have the option to leave the service even if they want to.

My most important message is that what I felt was wrong. I did have options - and so do we all. You can make a difference.

To our national leadership: Implement the recommendations of the RAND report on the Invisible Wounds of War. to ensure that all servicemembers have access to quality, evidence-based care. Although most media coverage focused only on the numbers of veterans coming home with mental health issues and Traumatic Brain Injuries, the other important conclusion of this report is that it actually costs more - in terms of lost productivity, broken families, and suicides - to NOT provide treatment than it does to treat those who are struggling. (Full disclosure: I worked on that report.)

To state and local leaders: Lots of people want to help our veterans but don't know how; lots of veterans need assistance but don't know where to find it. Support efforts to link resources and needs. Consider the blueprint set forth by Rhode Island to establish a military-civilian partnership to match servicemembers and families in need with available community resources.

To the public: Urge your elected officials to take care of our active duty personnel and veterans, and hold them accountable if they do not. Donate your money, time, and voice to organizations providing needed services.
To friends and family members: Reach out - get help if you need it. If you truly know that your soldier is in trouble, take action. Tell someone. A person can get over being angry.

To front line leaders: If one of your soldiers is struggling, get them help. Be compassionate: this is not the time to fear malingering or push stoicism. When suicide kills more soldiers than enemy action while we are engaged in two wars, there is a crisis. This is a also a readiness issue. Mental health can be like physical health: early intervention and proper care can allow a full recovery. Work to decrease stigma so soldiers feel comfortable getting help. Combat and readjustment are hard - don't make them worse by downplaying real issues.

To struggling soldiers: Fight the enemy within. The one who tells you there is no hope, no one who will understand, there are no other options, there is no future. That inner enemy is wrong. It takes time, the path is winding, and it may get worse before it's over, but you will get better. Seek help. Don't give up if it doesn't come easily - try again. I'm seeing a great therapist now who really helps me, but I had to try a couple before I found the right one.

Check out these resources:
Military One Source
Not Alone
and some of the resources listed on the right side of the VetVoice page.  

You are not alone. You are part of a community of veterans who understands what you're going through. Even if society doesn't understand, a lot of civilians actually do care. You served with honor, and you have the right to demand the help you need. Fight through this, and when you are on the other side, turn and offer your hand to those who come after you.    

Negotiation

by: Kayla Williams

Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EDT

         However, according to a recent AP article, shortly after 9/11 Iran "rounded up hundreds of Arabs who had crossed the border from Afghanistan, expelled many of them," and turned copies of nearly 300 of their passports over to the United Nations, which passed them to the United States.  

         Iran was helpful in "working to overthrow the Taliban and collaborating with the United States in installing the Karzai government in Kabul," and sought broader cooperation with the United States. The Bush administration snubbed Iran's outreach - and look where that has gotten us. Iran has become increasingly bellicose. The strategy of publicly denouncing Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil" and not resuming direct diplomatic relations has failed miserably.

         It is not only diplomats who extol the virtues of diplomacy and negotiation. Secretary of Defense Gates drew attention when in a speech he emphasized the virtues of "soft power" and urged increased spending on "the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."

         General Petraeus even said yesterday that "negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by an intensifying insurgency," adding that "negotiations with insurgents willing to consider reconciliation could reduce violence by isolating hard-core militants."

         I believe that our refusing to engage in negotiations or diplomatic relations with Iranian leaders simply adds to the internal legitimacy of those who engage in the most aggrandizing, nationalistic rhetoric. Diplomacy and negotiation have been broadly advocated by both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General Petraeus.

         To me, that makes Senator John McCain sound not only isolationist and excessively hawkish, but also like the one who is truly naive in his foreign policy views.  

Victory or Meaninglessness

by: Kayla Williams

Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 16:40:24 PM EDT

I'll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, "Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it."

He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, "I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor."

And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, "But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain."

McCain did not reassure this woman that her son's death was absolutely not in vain, and could not have been in vain, because he died valiantly, serving his country with honor, alongside his fellow soldiers. No, he explained to us:

That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don't want defeat.

Does this mean that John McCain actually believes that American soldiers who die honorably serving their country in any war we do not "win" die in vain? Or is he simply willing to make that assertion for political gain?

Do not misunderstand me: I pray that all of the suffering, both American and Iraqi, leads to a positive outcome. But if it does not, I still do not believe that the decision to put on the uniform and go into harm's way for one's country is a meaningless sacrifice. Like my friend, I do not believe it is ever done in vain.

Barack Obama responded better than I could:

No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided.

I regret that I have but one life to give for my country. -Nathan Hale