Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

FORGIVENESS AND HEALING

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

I knew I wanted to see the film “The Sapphires” when I heard that it was based on a true story about 4 Australian aboriginal women who entertain U.S.  troops in Vietnam.  Last Saturday night we couldn’t get to Amherst Cinema in time to see the film so we saw “The Company You Keep,” Robert Redford’s film of the book with the same title by Neil Gordon about Weather Underground members who go underground after a botched bank robbery ends in the murder of a security guard.  It was a worthwhile film that had echoes of the ’60′s and the anti-war movement as well as an incredible scene featuring Susan Sarandon explaining what motivated her character to join a group advocating ending the war by any means necessary including violence.

In between the two films was “The Draft,” the staged reading of the play based on CALLED TO SERVE.  There were too many highlight moments for me to attempt to chronicle, but Penny Rock journeying from San Francisco to see Peter Snoad’s play was certainly one of the most memorable.  Peter and I got to debrief with her over lunch on Friday following Thursday night’s premiere performance, which played to a full house and received a wonderfully enthusiastic response from the audience and those sending email congratulatory messages.  Penny had many suggestions, but I felt her strongest message was no matter what Peter decides to change based on viewer comments or viewing the videotape courtesy of men’s group member and interview subject, Paul Richmond, he should most assuredly hold onto what the book and play are urging on us all – forgiveness and healing.  The Vietnam War divided our country and those divisions are with us still. The book and play are intended to allow all who read and watch to gain an awareness and ultimately an appreciation for the ways in which we were all victims of the war and the way forward is to recognize the commonality of our experiences, forgive ourselves and one another for what we did and did not do and ultimately continue the healing process that remains so unfinished despite the intervening years.  Penny embodies that work in her own story, which I decided, at the strong urging of my wife Susan who was deeply moved once again by seeing aspects of Penny’s story brought to life in the play, to include in the next version of CALLED TO SERVE.

With such words and thoughts echoing in my mind, watching “The Sapphires” last night provided many new and powerful images having to do with forgiveness and healing.  Without revealing too much, since I strongly urge you to see the film if that is possible in your neck of the woods,  let it suffice to say that there is a moment in the film where a beloved grandparent figure finds it in her heart to welcome a “stolen child,” one who was literally kidnapped by white Austalians who gave themselves license, as was done here in America to our native population, to steal native children, especially light skinned ones, from their homes, communities and cultures in order to raise them in a white world.  The scene where this takes place was overpowering for me.  All of the ways in which our culture has so egregiously failed to welcome our soldiers home, to cleanse them and accept them back into the community, to heal them and affirm them as beloved members of their families, and to forgive them for the awful things they have had to see and do – these failures were what I was keenly aware of as I watched this young woman brought back into the loving embrace of her loved ones.

This is what we must face as a country, community by community.  This film reinforces this fact sensitively and beautifully.

 

 

YET ANOTHER HEIGHT OF ABSURDITY – HONORING A WAR CRIMINAL…

Friday, April 26th, 2013
Yes, I know there are fellow citizens who are quite convinced that honoring George W. Bush with a  library is somehow fitting, but I could not let the event of its opening go by without commenting on how absolutely absurd and disrespectful such an occurrence feels for many others of us around the world.  This article highlights some of the views of those who see Bush and his cronies, Cheney, Rice, Rove, etc… as perpetrators of war crimes – from starting pre-emptive wars to imprisoning suspected terrorists without trials, from killing countless innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens to torturing others and, perhaps most disturbingly, being honored for such actions when what should be happening is accountability and trials.  I have felt this way since 2002 when the lies that were being told to us overrode 15 million people world-wide desperately seeking to stop the impending war.  Such events as what occurred yesterday, accompanied by the blindness of such organizations as MSNBC, which gets it right so much more often than so many other news programs, brings it all back – the treachery, the deceit, the utter destruction of the lives, homes, culture of the people whose countries our government authorized the destruction of… The words of Thomas Young, the wounded Iraq war veteran who remains in hospice waiting to die, conclude the piece and are both eloquent and haunting:
My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.
Published on Thursday, April 25, 2013 by Common Dreams

Celebration in Texas Opens New Library for “War Criminal”

George W. Bush Presidential Center opens on the campus of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas

- Jon Queally, staff writer

George W. Bush Library dedication attended By President Obama And former presidents. (Photo: Getty)Responding to the fawning morning coverage of the opening of the George W. Bush presidential library in Texas Thursday, independent journalist Jeremy Scahill mocked the cable news outlet MSNBC by tweeting:

 

 

“This is such a singular moment,” said MSNBC’s David Gregory in the interlude between the presentation of the First Ladies and the subsequent introduction of President Obama and the former US presidents: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter. “It’s not just pomp and circumstance,” Gregory said as the US Army band rolled drums and the trumpets blared.

The Pledge of Allegiance followed.  Shortly thereafter, former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took the podium to deliver a series of introductions.

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews set the frame for the network’s coverage by saying, “No one wants to talk about Iraq on a day like this.” Instead Matthews repeated time and again, what people really wanted to know was what Obama and former first lady Barbara Bush, seated next to one another on stage, were chatting and giggling about.

As the ordered ceremony continued—with each former President taking turns with a few remarks—anti-war activists proved Matthews wrong by utilizing the official #bushcenter hashtag to voice their opposition to the Bush legacy and calling the former president a ‘war criminal’:

The library, officially called the George W. Bush Presidential Center, is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas and was designed to honor—critics argue ‘to re-write’—the legacy of the former US president whose administration led the country into two foreign wars, opened the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as a way to avoid judicial oversight of detainee treatment, initiated rendition and torture programs within a global network of CIA-run black site facilities, oversaw the creation of a vast national surveillance apparatus, and ushered in the largest financial crisis of the modern era.

Outside the event, more than 200 peace activists protested behind police barricades against what they called Bush’s “crimes against humanity”.

In an interview with USA Today earlier this week, George W. Bush repeated what he has often said about his legacy by remarking, “I did what I did and ultimately history will judge.”

For many, however, that judgement deserves no further delay.

Asked in an interview to suggest what the world should remember about the Bush legacy, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange responded by saying:

A good place to start would be laying out the number of deaths caused by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. At Wikileaks, we documented that from 2004-2009, the US had records of over 100,000 individual deaths of Iraqis due to violence unleashed by that invasion, roughly 80% of them civilians. These are the recorded deaths, but many more died. And in Afghanistan, the US recorded about 20,000 deaths from 2004-2010. These would be good facts to include in the presidential library.

And perhaps the library could document how people around the world protested against the invasion of Iraq, including the historic February 15, 2003 mobilization of millions of people around the globe.

And Common Dreams contributors Jodie Evans and Charles Davis write on Thursday:

George W. Bush presided over an international network of torture chambers and, with the help of a compliant Congress and press, launched a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. However, instead of the bloody details of his time in office being recounted at a war crimes tribunal, the former president has been able to bank on his imperial privilege – and a network of rich corporate donors that he made richer while in office – to tell his version of history at a library in Texas being opened in his name.

Kill a few, they call you a murderer. Kill tens of thousands, they give you $500 million for a granite vanity project and a glossy 30-page supplement in the local paper.

They concluded:

Bush’s legacy is reflected not in his library, but in the regular bombings that rock Baghdad, killing dozens at a time. The Connecticut blue blood turned straight talkin’ Texan is of course welcome to tell his side of the story. That’s only fair. But let him do it at the Hague.

Last month, on the tenth anniversay of the start of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, wounded Iraq war veteran Thomas Young, who remains in hospice waiting to die, wrote an open letter to Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney which included:

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Ending his letter, Young wrote to Bush:

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

Back in Texas on Thursday, just as Bush closed his remarks at the library’s opening ceremony, a tear caught his eye and he swallowed a sob as he returned to his seat. There was no apology for the war, the many deaths, or torture. There was no confession or acknowledgement of sin or error.  The military band rose to perform “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah” as the other presidents, their wives, and the crowd sang and applauded.

_

Now that Women Serve in Combat, Do We Need a Draft to Avoid War?

Sunday, February 17th, 2013

Charles Rangel sure thinks so and I have to confess, given our track record since Vietnam with an all-volunteer army fighting our awful and unnecessary wars, perhaps he’s right.  I am certainly torn when it comes to imagining a re-instated draft that requires all young Americans to serve their country in either military or civilian roles for 2 years.  Remembering the anti-war movement that was very connected to the draft during Vietnam and how our government responded got easier for me this week, since I have been watching the incredibly powerful Oliver Stone series, “UNKNOWN HISTORY OF THE U.S.” and the last episode (#7) I watched Friday morning before school was all about the war.

Arguments continue to this day as to whether it was the degree to which the draft affected so many of my generation that gave rise to such a movement and whether that movement caused Nixon and his cronies to question our endless seeming involvement in that “mistake,” as John Kerry, now Secretary of State, called it.  But if there was more “shared sacrifice” as Rangel describes it, would Bush’s administration have thought twice before beginning the horrific wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Pentagon is now obligated to consider whether women upon turning 18 will have to do as their male counterparts have been doing and register with the armed services.  Rangel wants this country’s leaders to much more deeply examine what they are doing when they support such grand mistakes as the two wars Bush and co. began and he feels if they were obliged to consider the effects on a much broader swath of the population, they’d be much less likely to rush us into war.  If he’s correct then I could support such a draft…

Rangel wants women to be drafted

By Geneva Sands – 02/15/13 10:11 AM ET
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) on Friday said he plans to introduce legislation that would bring back the military draft and extend it to women for the first time.

Rangel, who has pushed for years to bring back the draft, said the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat means that they too should register for the Selective Service.

“Now that women can serve in combat they should register for the Selective Service alongside their male counterparts,” Rangel said in a statement. “Reinstating the draft and requiring women to register for the Selective Service would compel the American public to have a stake in the wars we fight as a nation. We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm’s way.”

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed an order rescinding the ban on women serving in combat units last month, potentially opening up as many as 237,000 positions to female service members.

The move raised a number of policy issues, including whether women will now be required to register with the Selective Service. The Pentagon is required to report on how changing the ban effects the constitutionality of the registration being males only.

In an interview on MSNBC, Rangel said the draft should be reinstated because the majority of Americans make “no real sacrifice” when the country goes to war.

“The Congress never gets a chance to vote up and down on these war questions. Every president just puts our kids in harm’s way and we just foot the bill, but there’s no real sacrifice in what’s going on. Less than 1 percent of American families are involved in the military and they really pay the price for it,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

He argued that a draft would make the executive branch think long and hard before sending troops overseas.

“Take my word for it, if every time a president was about to put our kids in harm’s way, we we’re thinking about our kids and grandkids, it just wouldn’t happen,” he said.

Rangel’s legislation would require those between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform two years of national service in either the armed services or in civilian life, while the All American Selective Service Act would force women to enroll in the Selective Service System.

“If this country has its security threatened, I would like to believe that all of us, no matter how old we are, would want to do something.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/house/283387-rangel-to-introduce-legislation-to-reinstating-the-draft-#ixzz2L9fphNVC

WHY WOMEN SERVING IN COMBAT IS NOT WHAT OUR NATION NEEDS

Friday, January 25th, 2013
I’ve been feeling uneasy ever since it was announced that women could now serve in combat and I have been trying to find the words to express my feeling of trepidation.  I knew that what the world really needs is for there to be fewer men having to fight our wars of empire so hearing that women were now being allowed to do our dirty work in other countries was far from comforting, but when I read the article below by Lucinda Marshall, I knew that my recent silence needed to be broken.  She frames this development so well in terms of the ways in which the military exploits poor men and women, especially those of color, and in terms of the fact that women have more to fear from sexual assault by their fellow soldiers than they do from any enemy.  These issues will no doubt be pushed even further out of public awareness and scrutiny as we now celebrate this supposed breakthrough for women.  BUt we should all beware as Ms. Marshall quotes a women’s advocacy group from their FACEBOOK page:
“We do not celebrate sending us women overseas to kill other women and children in someone else’s name.”  Until and unless we begin to seriously address the economic and cultural problems that have lead to the “poverty draft” that provides a significant number of “volunteers” and the mistreatment of women by their male counterparts, so-called equality on the battlefield is simply a cover for the real issues that have largely been ignored or downplayed as patriotism and empire hold sway.  Here’s what Ms. Marshall says about the true nature of our government’s attitude towards women:
“And let’s face it, we live in a country where Congress just failed to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act and where we still don’t have the Equal Rights Amendment and the Senate has yet to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).  The disrespect of women’s rights, safety and well-being is a de facto national policy in the U.S.”

Published on Friday, January 25, 2013 by Common Dreams

Why Serving In Combat Does Not Serve Women (Or Anyone Else) Well

Crucial as it is for women to have the same opportunities and benefits as men who do comparable work, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that women can now serve in combat positions in the military should not be misconstrued as a step forward for women. Lt. Col. Tamatha Patterson of the Army with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Photo: Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times)

As the women’s rights advocacy group AF3IRM GABNET said in a statement on their Facebook page,

The Pentagon lifted a ban on women in combat, stating that women can now serve on the frontlines. We in AF3IRM know that this is already common practice and that women of color and transnational women are already disproportionately over-represented in the US military. They are pushed into military duty due to poverty and lack of other options.

We do not celebrate this new “elimination of a gender-based barrier.” We do not celebrate sending us women overseas to kill other women and children in someone else’s name. (emphasis mine)

According to a study by the PEW Research Center, women now make up 14% of the enlisted ranks and 16% of the officer ranks.  A look at the racial breakdown of those numbers is instructive,

While 71% of active-duty men are white (including white Hispanics), only about half of active-duty women (53%) are white. The share of white women in the military is also significantly smaller than their proportion in the civilian female population ages 18-44 (78%).

More than three-in-ten (31%) military women are black (including black Hispanics). This is almost twice the share of active-duty men who are black (16%), as well as more than twice the proportion of civilian women ages 18-44 who are black (15%). In addition, more women in the active-duty force than men in the active-duty force and civilian women ages 18-44 are of mixed racial background or some other race.3

The share of Hispanics among women and men in the armed forces is similar (13% vs. 12%, respectively), and the share of military women who are Hispanic is smaller than that of Hispanic women ages 18-44 in the U.S. civilian population (16%). But the number of Hispanics enlisting in the active-duty force each year has risen significantly over the last decade. In 2003, Hispanic women and men made up 11.5% of the new enlistees to the military; just seven years later, in 2010, they made up 16.9% of non-prior service enlisted accessions.

Further,

More than eight-in-ten post-9/11 female veterans say they joined to serve their country or receive education benefits (83% and 82%, respectively). Fully 70% say they joined to see more of the world and almost as many (67%) say they joined to gain job skills.

However, there is one key difference in the reasons that men and women joined the military. Some 42% of female veterans say they joined the military because jobs were hard to find, compared with one-quarter of men.

The take away here should be that we need to take a good hard look at the ways in which we are failing these women in regard to job training and job availability in the civilian world because as it stands now, we are effectively asking the most disenfranchised among us to fight our wars, and this move only makes it more dangerous for them, regardless of rank and benefits.

So yes, equal rights and benefits are necessary, but not at the expense of condoning a system that requires us to kill and destroy for empire and perpetuates a myriad of harms against women, against men too, and against Mother Earth.

It is also hugely ironic that Panetta’s announcement came the same day that Congress was holding yet another hearing on the intractable problem of sexual assault in the military.  The truth is that women are more likely to be attacked by other members of our military than by any enemy.  The New York Times’ Gail Collins makes the unfortunate suggestion that having more women rise in the ranks might,

make things better because it will mean more women at the top of the military, and that, inevitably, will mean more attention to women’s issues.

Sexual assault in the military is not a woman’s issue.  It is an epidemic and a national disgrace that is a direct result of the misguided notion of militarism that posits that strength comes from asserting power over others.  Militarism has never been good for women because, among other reasons, it places them in harms way by armies that rape and assault women as a de facto military strategy and because women are more likely to become refugees, unable to support themselves or take care of their families and placing them in further danger of physical and sexual attack.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also makes the argument that more equality will lead to more respect and hence less sexual assault in the ranks, but the military is still a top-down power over structure and women who do serve in lower ranks will continue to be vulnerable.  And let’s face it, we live in a country where Congress just failed to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act and where we still don’t have the Equal Rights Amendment and the Senate has yet to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).  The disrespect of women’s rights, safety and well-being is a de facto national policy in the U.S.

It is being said that drafting women will inevitably follow and I am not in favor of that any more than I think drafting men is a good thing.  Let’s be honest about the mission of the U.S. military.  It isn’t to defend this country, there hasn’t been a war for that purpose in my lifetime.  Instead we have repeatedly engaged in military operations for the sole purpose of asserting empire and domination.

If the purpose of the military was truly to defend the citizens of this country and make it strong, they would be protecting women from violence in their own ranks and in every city in this country.  They would be building up our shorelines to protect us from the inevitable further flooding of climate change.  They would be re-building our tattered roads and utilities and installing solar panels so that we do not depend on  non-renewable resources (of which incidentally they are one of the biggest users).

But instead, our military serves as the global bully, taking swings at whomever we don’t like at at any particular moment, with little heed to the negative impact that has on us all.  And every time there is a war, civilian women who live where the war is being fought are victimized.  And here at home more money is poured into the military while social services, education and health care are desperately underfunded and for poor women and women of color we perpetuate the cycle that propels them to join the military for reasons such as getting an education and job training.

So yes, equal rights and benefits are necessary, but not at the expense of condoning a system that requires us to kill and destroy for empire and perpetuates a myriad of harms against women, against men too, and against Mother Earth.  That is a false and harmful premise of equality that we must reject.

Copyright © 2013 Lucinda Marshall
Lucinda Marshall

Lucinda Marshall is the Founder and Director of the Feminist Peace Network, http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org.  She is the author of the FPN blog as well as Reclaiming Medusa, http://www.lucindamarshall.com.

A DAUGHTER HEALS FROM HER FATHER’S VIETNAM WAR PTSD

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

It’s been almost 3 months since my last post – months spent watching our supposedly democratic country dealing with an election season characterized by too much money being spent to promote far too much dishonesty and hypocrisy while the War in Afghanistan disappears into the nether reaches of newspapers and the effects of over 10 years of war on our soldiers, our veterans and their families becomes a sideshow.  I have not been inspired to add my voice to the clutter of voices – until this evening, this first evening of the sun setting too soon on a spectacularly beautiful autumn day.  I have spent it feeling thankful that my family was not seriously impacted by Hurricane Sandy and I contributed to the Red Cross relief efforts to help those whose lives will never be the same.  I also spent some time this afternoon reading the story my daughter, Maddie, my hero for her work in a special education high school in the South Bronx, sent Susan and me about the latest recipient of a “Blissful Bedroom” makeover.  His name is Omar and here is his situation and why he is receiving a makeover of the room he shares with his 11 year old brother:

Omar is a very sweet, loving and expressive young man who is 20 years of age. He is challenged with cerebral palsy which makes him reliant on a wheelchair for mobility and completely dependent on others for all activities of daily living, such as eating, transitioning, bathing, toileting, dressing, etc.

Maddie is part of a small group of educators who have taken it upon themselves to re-decorate the bedrooms of young people whose lives are incredibly challenging and you can see a remarkable short film about Omar here:

http://blissfulbedrooms.org/omars-bedroom-makeover/

There is a song sung at Passover entitled, “Dayenu,” which means, “It Would Have Been Enough,” and truthfully either let alone both of these afternoon pastimes would have been sufficient for me to emerge from my silence to write about, but then I found the story which gives this post its title.  I have often wondered how those who are the children of Vietnam veterans have been affected by their parents’ service and I have certainly had some encounters with some who have been deeply impacted, but I definitely felt like my consciousness was raised when I read the story that follows.  Christal Presley has written a book, THIRTY DAYS WITH MY FATHER, that chronicles her own desperate journey through the PTSD she inherited from her father’s year-long service in Vietnam.  It is a harrowing article about what is surely a very difficult book to read, but one that I feel should be required reading for all politicians who will ever face having to decide whether to send young men and women to war.  The last part of the article when Christal tells about meeting the daughter of an Iraq War veteran who suffers from PTSD is riveting and tragic as the same type of trauma that characterized her childhood is occurring with this young child.  This is what the focus of the election should be addressing and until and unless we have such candidates I fear we are bound to keep fighting useless wars with countless casualties.

A daughter faces demons of father’s war

By Moni Basu, CNN

updated 10:56 AM EST, Sun November 4, 2012

It took Christal Presley many years to understand how a war that took place before she was even born had marred her life. Her father, Delmer Presley, was traumatized by a yearlong tour of Vietnam, which in turn affected Christal.

>>

(CNN) — Inside a trailer in Honaker, Virginia, is a 5-year-old girl who loves lemon-lime slush. She sleeps in a room with a quilted bedspread and matching purple curtains. She adores her cat Tiger, dogs Smoky and Rusty and a black, pop-eyed goldfish.

Her family is poor, and she is eating potted meat, blowing away cracker crumbs that fall into her lap.

“Daddy,” she whispers when her father, a welder, comes home. He does not respond. His eyes are wild. He collapses into a rocking chair, his hands trembling, his breathing labored.

She doesn’t understand her father’s strange behavior. It’s as though he’s in the grip of the devil.

She hides behind the couch, her knees press against the shag carpeting.

Later, she will remember this moment as the first time she was afraid of her father.

A hole in her soul

Christal Presley, 34, held her breath for two seemingly endless days in mid-October. In Honaker, more than 300 miles away from her home in Atlanta, her father had just received a package in the mail. It contained an early copy of Christal’s new book. On the cover: a sepia-tone snapshot of Delmer Presley holding his rifle in Vietnam.

Christal had staked her whole life on words crafted from love and pain. But what would they mean to her father?

 

Delmer Presley, Christal Presley’s father, was drafted before his 19th birthday and served a year in Vietnam.

Would they offer comfort like the conversations that resulted in the book? Or would they act as another trigger point for a man who never left war behind?

Thirty Days With My Father” is a gritty memoir written by a woman haunted by what some psychologists describe as second-generation post-traumatic stress disorder.

The trauma began in Vietnam, affected Delmer and then, Christal, says psychiatrist Frank Ochberg, a trauma expert who served on the committee that defined PTSD in the post-Vietnam era.

Christal, he says, suffered profound injury. And it stayed with her.

Outwardly, her life appeared successful: She settled in Atlanta, owned a house, worked as an educator.

But she always felt a hole in her soul. She didn’t know her father — or herself.

How was it, she wondered, that a war that ended before her birth had marred her life in so many ways?

The book became Christal’s salvation — “my last resort to find happiness,” she says.

But she worried about how her father would feel seeing his troubled life exposed to the entire world. Encourage him to read the ending first, she told her mom. That way, he will understand: It’s not just an ugly portrait of pain. It’s a book about healing.

 

Christal grew up affected by the post-traumatic stress disorder that her father suffered after fighting in Vietnam.

Wishing for normal

Christal was only 5, but she remembers clearly that day when her family came undone. Her father, on his way home from work, had come upon an accident on the highway. His friend, Josh Coleman, was dead.

It was the first time Delmer had seen a body since he returned from his yearlong tour of duty. Thirteen years had passed, but instantly, his mind reeled back to Vietnam: to underground tunnels brimming with snakes and booby traps laced with sharp punji sticks that skewered his buddies like meat.

Christal never knew normal again.

Gone was the man who gave her piggyback rides, ate mud pies and smiled as he watched her play an angel in a school play.

Delmer vacillated between depression, silence and sheer rage.

He locked himself in the bedroom his wife had decorated with shadow boxes filled with Delmer’s medals, Army boots, hats, dog tags and a worn pocket-size military-issue Bible. The room screamed war, Christal says. She was scared to enter.

At Christmas, Delmer never watched Christal open presents. She could hear him playing music in his room.

She learned to resent the guitar her father loved so much. She wished he would spend time with her, speak to her, seek solace in her.

When a truck backfired or Christal dropped a plate by accident, her father leaped up and went into soldier-at-war mode. Christal hated going out to eat at noisy restaurants — everyone just stared.

The worst moments came when he picked up his shotgun and left the house for Little River, announcing to Christal and her mother, Judy, that he was going to kill himself.

As time passed, Christal forgot the daddy she’d once known.

Judy, a Pentecostal Christian, believed you had to be perfect to reach heaven and kept the family’s struggles secret.

Christal pretended to the outside world that their life was normal.

Once when she was 6, she stole a neighbor’s photo of a family trip to the beach. She cut the family’s smiling faces out and replaced them with pictures of herself and her mom and dad. She showed the doctored photo off in class, describing for her classmates what a great time they’d had.

Leaving a war zone

Ironically, it was Delmer’s trauma that enabled Christal to escape her parents’ home.

Until then, every birthday had not been a celebration as much as it was a countdown to the day she’d turn 18 and be able to leave.

The federal government paid for her schooling at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. That’s because by then, the Army had declared her father 100% disabled.

When Delmer returned from Vietnam in 1970, psychiatrists were just starting to recognize PTSD as an impairment. The first diagnosis for Vietnam veterans did not occur until 1980 when Christal was 2.

Veterans weren’t encouraged to seek help, like they are these days. “My dad just thought he was going crazy.”

As frightening as it was for Christal to leave Honaker and be alone for the first time, she felt liberated.

“I was so tired of living in a war zone,” she says. “I really thought my father ruined my life.”

As a girl, she had taken a razor from her mother’s sewing kit and sliced her skin open. She cut herself with an ink pen and stapled her hands.

Hurting herself was a way to be close to her dad. He was in such pain, she thought, that she would be, too.

In college, she mixed anti-depressants with rum and tequila and drank alone. She wanted to numb herself like PTSD sufferers do.

She had her father’s eyes — and his behavior. Severe mood swings. Anxiety. She was hypersensitive to sounds. She stood back and skimmed the crowd in a room, looking for the quickest exit. She was private, reserved. She didn’t trust people.

She told Delmer she hated him.

She went through boyfriend after boyfriend, craving a man’s touch, looking for the affection her father had never shown.

She dreaded driving back home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. As she approached winding John Douglas Wayside in Abingdon and began her climb up the Virginia mountains, she had flashbacks.

She saw herself as a child wrapped tightly around Delmer’s legs, trying to prevent him from going down to the river to kill himself. Or lying on her bed, curled into a fetal ball.

In college, she saw a therapist regularly and didn’t speak to her father, except peripherally, for 13 years. In that time, she came to understand that her troubles were related to his.

“My father got that way from being in Vietnam,” Christal says. “I got it from being around him.”

 

A baby Christal sits on Delmer’s lap. He found solace in his music and would sometimes play the guitar eight hours a day.

Thirty days

After college and teaching jobs and a brief marriage, Christal settled in Atlanta. But she ventured in several directions in search of an inner peace: to holy sites in the Indian Himalayas, to the halls of academia, where she earned a doctorate in education.

Always, she came up empty.

She’d begun writing as a way to understand herself, and work through her problems. One day, her coach in a writing group challenged her to take on the subject she feared most. Her father.

She decided to ask Delmer if he would participate in a series of conversations about Vietnam. Just in case things became unbearable, she set a time limit for her project: 30 days. She could stand anything as long as an end was in sight.

She was sure Delmer would refuse. Why would he speak about it now when he had kept it to himself for almost four decades?

When Delmer said yes, Christal was taken aback. She had been so certain he would not participate that she didn’t even know how to begin.

The first few conversations were strained. Delmer sounded suspicious.

But by Day Four, he was telling her how he got a draft letter just before his 19th birthday.

“It was after the Tet Offensive, the worst time to be drafted,” Delmer said. The surprise North Vietnamese military campaign is considered the turning point of the war.

“America saw right then that this wasn’t going to be a fast war,” he said. “The American people went berserk, turned against their own. They stopped supporting the war, hated us soldiers like devils.”

Christal was humbled by her father’s words. And appalled to learn of the public scorn. Such a thing would never happen today, she thought.

The conversations continued day by day, through the end of 2009.

Delmer talked about Agent Orange, the defoliant that rained down on the jungle from U.S. planes. He blames it for a tumor he developed in his right lung and cysts on his fingers.

He told her he placed men he knew in body bags for their final journey home. She asked whether he was in My Lai when U.S. soldiers were ordered to wipe out the village — unarmed civilians, including women and children. Delmer told her he was not but that he was ordered to pull guard the day Pentagon authorities went in to investigate.

Christal had read about My Lai. She told her father that 500 bodies were found. “You are wrong about that,” Delmer said. “There were 504.”

Christal had not known her father’s anguish until then — the moments he relived, the guilt he felt for surviving.

With two months left in Vietnam, Delmer welcomed another young soldier to his platoon. The commanders made Delmer trade places with the newbie, who was placed at the front of the line in their battlefield maneuvers.

 

Christal’s mother, Judy, was embarrassed by the family’s struggles and urged her daughter to keep them secret.

The soldier stepped on a booby trap.

Delmer never came to terms with the soldier’s death. He knew the young man had a newborn daughter he had never seen. Delmer lay awake at night thinking: “It should have been me.”

When her father shared that story, Christal was silent on the phone. She’d thought of her dad as a guy pointing a gun — not as someone who suffered.

The most important review

Days after sending a copy of her book to her father, Christal met a woman who wanted to write about her project for a blog called Family Of A Vet. They talked over lunch at Tin Lizzy’s restaurant near downtown Atlanta.

The woman’s husband did three tours of Iraq and is disabled by PTSD and traumatic brain injury. She takes care of him and her three young children.

Daughter Caitlin, 9, had come along. Christal was talking about her 30-day project when Caitlin piped up.

“Christal,” she said. “My mommy says your daddy was in a war, too.”

“Yes, a long time ago, my daddy was in a war called Vietnam,” Christal told her. “Miss Christal,” said Caitlin. “Were you scared of your daddy like I am scared of mine? My daddy yells a lot and I go into my room and hide.”

“Caitlin,” said Christal. “Sometimes when someone comes back from war, they can’t help themselves. Like a baby who cries.”

Christal had always thought her father was distant and detached because he didn’t love her. She always thought it was her fault.

“Yeah, because they’ve seen bad things,” Caitlin said.

Christal had spoken with other grown children of Vietnam veterans. But this was the first time she saw herself in a child.

Christal contained herself in front of Caitlin. But when she and her mom drove away after lunch, Christal burst into tears.

It was a week before her book launch. Christal had a calendar chock-full of media interviews. She was confident that veteran communities would welcome her book. She was less sure about her father.

It took him two days to finish reading.

The phone rang, finally, on a Tuesday afternoon.

“It’s a good book, Christal,” Delmer told her.

“Do you like it?” she asked.

“Yes, I do.”

No other review was going to matter.

In his footsteps

Along a living room wall in Christal’s home in Atlanta stands a case containing a new Alvarez guitar. Delmer bought it for her three years ago, the first time they spent Christmas together after the 30-day project.

She’d told him she wanted to learn how to play. She knows that without his music, her father might be dead.

It kept him going after he couldn’t work anymore. It was like an extra limb. Sometimes he played for eight hours a day. He loves Ricky Skaggs, Ralph Stanley. War songs. Even wrote one himself.

“Having the guitar here makes me feel like a part of my father is here,” she says.

He sketched out chords for her on pieces of white paper, but Christal has been so busy finishing her book, she hasn’t had time to learn. Soon, she says, she will.

The guitar is not the only talisman in her home tying Christal to her father. Inside a small silver urn is a piece of a sandbag. The color is still a vivid sky blue. Next to it is a piece of asphalt.

She found them in Vietnam.

After the series of talks with her father, Christal felt compelled to go to Vietnam, to Chu Lai, down Route 1, to the place the Americans called LZ (landing zone) Bayonet, to the fire base known as Fat City.

Soldier’s Heart, an organization that supports veterans and their families suffering from psychological wounds, made the trip possible.

She climbed the slope of the landing pad where her father had slept. She gazed at a trench overgrown with grass and yellow wildflowers. The mountains behind her must have been where a young Delmer schlepped through thick jungle with a gun in his hand and a radio strapped to his back.

She could still see tank tracks embedded in the asphalt. And boot prints. Christal stepped inside, Vietnam surging through her body.

She felt ashamed she had treated her father the way she had. If only she could go back in time.

Delmer felt the same way.

He told her he locked himself away because he didn’t want to hurt her.

“I let her down,” he says. “It’s my fault. I didn’t realize I was hurting anyone.”

One time, he was frantic on the phone with Christal. He hadn’t burned any villages or killed any people, he told her as though someone were accusing him.

She no longer thought him crazy.

She told him he’s the bravest person she knows. She is sorry she couldn’t see that earlier.

“I forgive you. I forgive myself,” Christal told him.

Delmer says he’s happy, at least, that before he hangs up the phone with Christal these days, he can say: “I love you.”

Survivors

There is a temple in Vietnam, lush with ponds and trees with branches hanging low.

Outside, merchants sell birds, turtles and fish. Christal learns that people buy them and set them free in the temple, in accordance with the Eastern belief of the eternal nature of the soul.

She thinks back on a childhood fishing trip with her father. The fish she caught swallowed the hook and worm whole. It bled through the gills and gasped for life. “She’s dying,” Christal howled, begging Delmer to save it.

Delmer was calm, confident. He cut the line, freed the fish and assured her it would live. It struggled for a few seconds and then dived deep into the water.

Christal thinks now her father is like that fish — a survivor.

It is the day before she is to leave Vietnam and journey home. She steps forward, peers at the bags of goldfish for sale. One is black, like the fish she had in her aquarium as a little girl. That’s the one she chooses.

She walks over to the pond, opens the bag and watches the fish swim away.

 

VETERANS FOR PEACE SPEAK OUT – NO WAR IN IRAN!!!

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

It’s been over two months since my last post and it’s not been because little of consequence has been occurring.  I have embarked upon a new book project and for a month my daughter, Annabel, and her three children – my beloved grandchildren – were visiting and I was devoting most waking moments to being with them.  The new project is about men’s and women’s support groups – their purpose, function and role in the lives of their members over time as well as scholarly chapters about where such groups fit in the history of the women’s and men’s movements.

I have certainly thought of posting on numerous occasions the most recent of which was in response to the beyond heinous words of Todd Akin, Republican from Missouri, who spoke of “legitimate rape” this week.  So many folks have called him out for his hateful and ignorant statement that I let that one go, but this piece about the possibility of our government entering into yet another insane war grabbed my attention this afternoon.  That it is written by a woman veteran who tells why there is such an organization as VETERANS FOR PEACE was added incentive to share it with whomever chooses to partake.

Know that she is also castigating our country for the punishing sanctions on the people of Iran.  In Iraq she reminds us that the toll of the sanctions that lasted for so many years preceding the Iraq War was 500,000 children killed according to the U.N.  By imposing our will on a populace are we not sowing the seeds of yet another generation of people who hate the U.S.?  Are we not making war inevitable by driving a deeper wedge between their government, admittedly under the influence of some very disturbing characters, and ours?

Leah Bolger continues in the tradition of telling it like it is as she addresses her plaintive call to the leaders of non-aligned nations who are meeting in Tehran this week.  She implores them to do whatever they possibly can to prevent the U.S. and Israel making war on Iran and I join her and her organization, which she tells us began in 1985 “to bring an end to war,” in their efforts to head off the next one.  It frightens me terribly to think that it may already be too late.  She writes:

We Veterans For Peace know what war is like. President Obama does not. His political advisers also do not. Besides, their attention is fixed almost exclusively on the upcoming presidential election.

What is most dangerous is that the White House threat/mantra that all options, expressly including the “military option,” are on the table is seen by Israeli leaders as tantamount to a pledge that Obama will feel forced to honor, giving them carte blanche for attacking Iran, with the full expectation of U.S. military support.

Thankfully people of conscience like Leah are determined to keep trying…

 

Veterans for Peace Appeals for Peace, Not War on Iran

Group appeals to the leaders of non-aligned nations, a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc, to prevent military attack on Iran

by Leah Bolger

This is an urgent appeal from Veterans For Peace. We are an organization of U.S. veterans formed in 1985 to try to bring an end to war. VFP is a non-profit organization recognized by the UN as an NGO.

We are appealing to the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement to do everything in your power to head off a military attack on Iran in the coming weeks. Israel’s leaders regard the period between now and the U.S. election on November 6 as the most opportune time to virtually guarantee U.S. support for such an attack. And the continuing build-up of U.S. forces in the area of the Persian Gulf strengthens the impression of U.S. readiness to provide it.

As you non-aligned leaders meet later this week in Tehran, it seems time for plain speaking — and warning. Official statements by Israel and the U.S. assert, with cavalier nonchalance, that the “military option” against Iran is “on the table.”

Thus, Israel and the U.S. are, de facto, in open violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat to use force against a country from which there is no imminent danger. Sadly, after such threats it can be a short step to the actual use of force, as we observed in the lead-up to the illegal attack on Iraq in March 2003.

The U.S. corporate-owned media is highlighting the same kind of “fixed” intelligence and facts used exactly ten years ago to “justify” the attack on Iraq. Even though in January both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak, acknowledged that Iran is NOT working on a nuclear weapon, military action is still being blithely promoted as one option to deal with Iran’s “nuclear ambitions.”

We Veterans For Peace know what war is like. President Obama does not. His political advisers also do not. Besides, their attention is fixed almost exclusively on the upcoming presidential election.

What is most dangerous is that the White House threat/mantra that all options, expressly including the “military option,” are on the table is seen by Israeli leaders as tantamount to a pledge that Obama will feel forced to honor, giving them carte blanche for attacking Iran, with the full expectation of U.S. military support.

Veterans For Peace has been trying to warn about the mounting threat to Iran, but our warnings have been kept out of the U.S. corporate-owned media. Six months ago we sent an official memorandum to President Obama warning him that he needed to “talk sense to [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu.”

More recently, at the conclusion of our national conference on August 12th, we issued this statement:

“We reaffirm our solidarity with the Iranian people and urge the United States to lift the economic sanctions that were imposed on Iran. These sanctions are an act of war and are hurting the people of Iran. We demand that our own government stop its threats of war and we implore President Obama to state publicly and very clearly to Israel that the United States will not support an attack on Iran.”

Most Israelis and most Americans do not want war with Iran. As for the harsh sanctions on Iran, it is only the rhetoric of the governments in Tel Aviv and Washington and the parroting corporate media that have misled so many into thinking that sanctions against Iran are needed and morally justified.

Nonaligned countries are aware, better than most, of the suffering incurred by the imposition of such measures. Sanctions against Iran are no more justified than the ones imposed earlier on Iraq, which caused the deaths of at least 500,000 children under the age of five, according to the U.N.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops denounced that death toll as “unconscionable” in a formal statement on November 14, 2001. Madeleine Albright, in contrast, when she was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said she thought the toll was “worth it.” Sadly, that kind of thinking still prevails in the Obama administration.

The stringent economic sanctions imposed on Iran are equally unconscionable. And a military attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of international law.

This is not a time to sit on the sidelines and watch events unfold. Accordingly, we appeal to the leaders of non-aligned nations about to meet this week in Tehran to move swiftly to do what they can to head off any military attack on Iran and to take a strong position against the economic sanctions.

In peace,

Leah Bolger, CDR, USN, (Ret)

President, Veterans For Peace

Leah Bolger spent 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Navy and retired in 2000 at the rank of Commander.  She is currently a full-time peace activist and serves as the President of Veterans For Peace.

A Spiritual Test to Serve in the Military! Are You Kidding? If only…

Monday, June 11th, 2012

I had read about the Army’s test of spirituality earlier last week, so it was with great interest that I read Rev. Andrea Ayvazian’s piece about the test in her guest column in the Daily Hampshire Gazette this past Saturday.  I had felt quite appalled at the idea that the military felt it was necessary, as a means of discovering who was most fit to serve, to administer such an evaluation of one’s belief system.  That it was comprehensively biased against those without a belief in God was no surprise, nor that the test is being challenged in court as unconstitutional, but I was moved by Rev. Ayvazian’s take on the test and wrote a response to her piece.  Below you will find her thoughtful comments as well as my response.

Andrea Ayvazian: Armed with spirituality?

By Daily Hampshire Gazette
Created 06/09/2012 – 5:00am

HAYDENVILLE – The U.S. Army has made the big mistake of creating a “Spiritual Fitness” test to assess a soldier’s spiritual depth and readiness to serve in the military. The consequences of failing this test are dire. And by instituting this Spiritual Fitness test, the Army is treading on shaky theological ground.

The Spiritual Fitness test is part of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program, a $125 million “holistic fitness program” begun in 2009 with the aim of reducing the alarmingly high rate of suicides and stress-related disorders experienced by soldiers. The CSF measures a soldier’s fitness level in five areas: emotional, physical, family, social and spiritual. Every soldier is required to complete a survey that consists of some 100 questions.

If their responses fall short of the accepted fitness level, the soldier is required to take courses in a classroom or online to strengthen their resilience in the areas in which they received low scores.

The spiritual component of the test contains questions clearly written for soldiers who believe in God. Nonbelievers inevitably test poorly – and, due to their low scores, are forced to participate in courses and exercises that use religious language to train soldiers up to an acceptable level of spiritual beliefs.

The survey asks the soldier to rank himself or herself on statements such as: “I am a spiritual person. I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all of humanity. I often find comfort in my religion and spiritual beliefs.” Another question asks the soldier to respond to this statement: “In difficult times, I pray or meditate.”

The Spiritual Fitness test is taken online. If the person does not measure up to what the Army considers appropriately “spiritually fit” for a soldier, the computer program provides this assessment immediately: “Spiritual fitness may be an area of difficulty.”

The on-screen message continues, “You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and to others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles and values.”

The Spiritual Fitness test is being challenged in the courts as a violation of the First Amendment. Many “foxhole atheists” are outraged because when they “fail” the Spiritual Fitness test, they are being told they are unfit to serve in the Army.

Mikey Weinstein, a former Air Force lawyer who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, believes that the term “spirituality” is a smokescreen for religion – particularly evangelical Christianity – and that the test is “blatantly unconstitutional.” Weinstein is adamant: “It has to stop.”

I find the Spiritual Fitness test troubling not just because it violates a soldier’s First Amendment rights but also because the ironic twist embedded in this assessment makes the results of the test simply bizarre. The Army believes that people who pass the Spiritual Fitness test make acceptable soldiers.

However, as a Christian pastor, I think that precisely the opposite is true. Those who pass the Spiritual Fitness test are least likely to make good soldiers because their deeply held religious beliefs should make it impossible for them to kill others.

Those who score the highest on the Spiritual Fitness test should actually be rated as failures on this assessment tool because they should be bound by their faith to protect and promote all life.

The soldiers who answer a resounding yes to a particular statement (“I am a spiritual person. I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all of humanity”) would not consider anyone an “enemy” and would not kill another member of the human family – of any nationality, any ethnicity, in any country. Period.

The Army believes that soldiers need to be “spiritually fit” to serve in the military. And yet every major religion forbids killing, so if you are spiritually fit, you cannot serve. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, a sacred commandment on the lips of every faithful person is “Thou shall not kill.” And that sentiment is found in all the holy books and in every religious tradition around the globe.

So the Army has it backwards. Those who pass the Spiritual Fitness test – especially those who sail through with flying colors – should not be issued a gun.

They wouldn’t use it.

The Rev. Andrea Ayvazian, pastor of the Haydenville Congregational Church, writes a regular column on faith, culture and politics. She can be reached at [email protected] [1]. Her next column will appear in September.

 

IF ONLY PASSING THE TEST MEANT REFUSING TO KILL

Tom Weiner
A wonderful letter from a spiritual leader! It is outrageous that a spiritual test that overtly discriminates against those who do not believe in God is being used by the military to… what? Weed out those who are more likely to be able to take another’s life because they don’t believe their lives are “closely connected to all of humanity?” This is utter hypocrisy and Rev. Ayvazian does a fine job in pointing this out as she writes about the absurdity of requiring a soldier to pass a test of his spirituality and then expect him to see the enemy as other, as less human in order to become the killing machine he is trained to be.

My only very minor criticism pertains to Rev. Ayvazian’s conclusion – that those who pass the test “shouldn’t be issued a gun (because) they wouldn’t use it.” I have to beg to differ, since it is just those often evangelical Christians who “sail through with flying colors,” who justify taking another’s life by connecting God and the American flag via patriotism. If only we could succeed in dissolving this connection that has lead to innumerable deaths going back to the beginning of time and extending through Rome’s persecution of Christians, the horrible Crusades, Pakistan and India’s endless often bloody struggles, the unending wars between Israel and the Palestinians and right until the current wars pitting, in the eyes of many, Christianity against Islam.

If only the equation was made that Rev. Ayvazian points out when she mentions the pan-religious/humanitarian principle “Thou shalt not kill,” a connection that would equate leading a spiritual or atheistic life with refusing to take another’s life. That will be the day that the leaders will no longer have anyone to send to do their bidding and war will become unacceptable as a way to resolve conflict.

MISTAKES ADMITTED AT LONG LAST – WHAT LESSONS WILL BE LEARNED?

Monday, June 11th, 2012

When I had the chance to meet Marilyn Young, renowned Vietnam War scholar and contributor of an affirming blurb on the back cover of CALLED TO SERVE, it was at a reading of her recently published book – she was one of two co-editors – entitled IRAQ AND THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM OR HOW NOT TO LEARN FROM THE PAST. She and Lloyd Gardner had compiled a series of essays delineating the ways in which our government and military have misapplied what Vietnam could have taught us so we could have avoided horrible mistakes in the wars that have occurred since.  Here’s what Ms. Young had to say shortly after the War in Iraq began: “If Vietnam was Korea in slow motion, then Operation Iraqi Freedom is Vietnam on crack cocaine. In less then two weeks a 30 year old vocabulary is back: credibility gap, seek and destroy, hard to tell friend from foe, civilian interference in military affairs, the dominance of domestic politics, winning, or more often, losing hearts and minds.”  From that moment on, Ms. Young saw the parallels and the endless missteps that has resulted in more than a decade of war.

Now with countless lives lost, the enormous waste of our treasury, soldiers committing suicide once a week, and no end in sight insofar as the cycle of violence is concerned in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has published a self-assessment that reveals some of its failures in the hopes that the mistakes it describes will not be repeated in future wars.  The report is an internal document and is not available to the public, but a copy was posted Thursday on the website of a trade publication called ”Inside the Pentagon” (accessible only to regular or trial subscribers).  For those who have been paying attention it contains few if any surprises, but it is nonetheless significant since it reveals the thinking process that has evaluated our country’s actions in Iraq as well as having implications for the future.  Jeffery Smith has written about the report below.  Inadequate planning and preparation are mentioned frequently as major problems that led to some of the calamities that ensued.  What is not mentioned is the arrogance and hubris that led to these failures and I wish I saw an end in sight for these attitudes.

See what you think.

U.S. MILITARY ADMITS MAJOR WAR MISTAKES

By Jeffery Smith

When President Obama announced in Aug. 2010 the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, he complimented the soldiers who had served there for completing “every mission they were given.” But some of military’s most senior officers, in a little-noticed report this spring, rendered a harsher account of their work that highlights repeated missteps and failures over the past decade, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a “failure to recognize, acknowledge and accurately define” the environment in which the conflicts occurred, leading to a “mismatch between forces, capabilities, missions, and goals,” says the assessment from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. The efforts were marked by a “failure to adequately plan and resource strategic and operational” shifts from one phase of the conflicts to the next.

From the outset, U.S. forces were poorly prepared for peacekeeping and had not adequately planned for the unexpected. In the first half of the decade, “strategic leadership repeatedly failed,” and as a result, U.S. military training, policies, doctrine and equipment were ill-suited to the tasks that troops actually faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These self-critical conclusions appear in the first volume of a draft report titled “Decade of War” — part of a multi-volume survey of “enduring lessons” from the past ten years of conflict. When completed, “it will be used by senior leaders” to develop U.S. military forces for the future, according to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Fields, a Joint Staff spokeswoman.

Fields said the 36-page, May 2012 report remains an internal document and is not available to the public, but a copy was posted Thursday on the website of a trade publication called ”Inside the Pentagon” (accessible only to regular or trial subscribers).

Its criticisms are largely familiar to anyone who closely followed the two wars’ fitful progress or who read author Thomas Ricks’ seminal, bestselling 2006 account of the U.S. military’s early failings in Iraq, bluntly titled “Fiasco.” An internal Army War College assessment in 2005 cited in Ricks’ book reaches similar conclusions.

But this new retrospective may be more significant because it was prepared by the Pentagon directorate responsible for developing military educational curricula, war-fighting doctrine, and training regimes for all the services. What the report makes clear is that senior officers have fully accepted the judgment by so many others that their prosecution of the wars — at a direct cost to the federal budget of more than a trillion dollars — was in some ways inept.

While it does not name those responsible, the assessment points fingers in unmistakable directions. It says that the early dismantling of Iraq’s security forces and firing of mid-level government officials — decisions made by Ambassador Paul Bremer with broad support in the Bush administration — crippled Iraq’s ability to govern itself and fueled the insurgency, creating social chaos that lasted for years. The task of creating a new police and military force was a “severe burden” that neither U.S. troops nor civilian agencies were prepared to undertake.

The early signs of the insurgency, the report says, were ignored. Intelligence failures were rife, with early shortages of key analysts and interpreters, remotely piloted aircraft, and electronic eavesdroppers. What intelligence was gathered was sometimes over classified, with the result that it failed to reach those who needed it. And units were not taught in advance what local populations were really like; instead, they depended on what the military calls “discovery learning” — otherwise known as flying by the seat of one’s pants — with lessons not systematically passed along to units rotated in as replacements.

By 2005, two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the military side of the U.S. effort and the civilian aid side were pursuing different missions with different goals, leading to wasted expenditures and missed opportunities, the report states. And “the image of the U.S. was frequently tarnished by tactical actions that contradicted U.S. values or strategy,” ranging from the scandal at Abu Ghraib to paying inadequate heed at the outset to harmful images of civilian casualties.

The report’s toughest criticism is leveled at the mishandling and under manning by military commanders and political officials of key “transition” moments in the two wars — such as the end of major combat operations in 2003, the renewal of Iraqi self-governance in 2004-2005, and NATO’s takeover in 2006 of military operations in Afghanistan.

“Failure to adequately plan and resource strategic and operational transitions endangered accomplishment of the overall mission” in the first half of the decade, the account says, although the military did better later. “Non-combat skills, to include civil affairs, had not been adequately rehearsed.” In Afghanistan, “the planning assumed that the chief duty” of international troops after 2006 would be reconstruction and humanitarian aid — an assumption that turned out to be grotesquely wrong.

The reason, the report says, was that military planning was based on “U.S. expectations instead of those consistent with the host nation and mission,” a nice way of describing wishful thinking rather than realism. “For example,” the report notes, “ the planned end-state for Afghanistan was envisioned to be a strong central government despite no record of such a government in its history and lack of broad popular support for that system of governance.”

Without using his name, the report says that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who directed the V Corps that assumed control in Iraq after major combat ceased, was deployed without training in reconstruction and stabilization. “His staff was not manned, equipped, nor resourced to accept these responsibilities,” the chronicle explains.

U.S. military forces were also not equipped “to combat adaptive insurgencies” in both countries, the report says. While special forces units had some of the proper skills, they poorly coordinated their operations with regular forces. They did not routinely share intelligence, at least at the outset, and regular troops in Afghanistan complained until 2008 that the special forces’ actions often caused social disruptions that others had to contain.

The civilian side of the Iraq effort, which Bremer ran, “often lacked the necessary expertise and resources,” operated independently, and lacked an overarching strategy — a problem the report says was not really fixed until 2007.

The report credits U.S. forces with eventually overcoming “the challenge of inadequate planning and preparation … by widespread and successful adaptation at all levels” — partly at the urging of commanders such as Gen. David Petraeus. But the assessment notes that efforts to rush newly developed equipment to the wars impeded proper training, and caused late discovery of vulnerabilities and reliability or maintenance problems.

The report summarizes all of these problems in eleven “overarching lessons” to be drawn from the decade of war. But it warns that even though the U.S. military has developed what the report calls “an increasingly expeditionary mindset,” a better coordination of U.S. military and civilian efforts has yet to be mandated by “U.S. law or policy.”

 

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/us-military-admits-major-war-mistakes-1339429658. All rights are reserved.

MEMORIAL DAY – HOW CAN WE HONOR THOSE MORALLY INJURED BY WAR?

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

I have been searching for an article that captures what I believe is the true spirit of Memorial Day going back to its origins in 1865 when black people honored those who died fighting for freedom.  If you’re interested in the day’s origins, I’ve got the wikipedia citation at the end of this post.  It’s a story that should be told each year.

But this article goes to the heart of what is wrong with our propensity to start wars and to now be engaged in what is being called perpetual war. It speaks about those who experience “moral injury,” having survived the war only to become victims of suicide.  More servicemen and women have taken their own lives after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan than have been killed in combat.  That is a staggering statistic and this article brings this story to light in very powerful and very important ways.  It strongly urges us to face this fact and to act on behalf of those we send to do this country’ dirty work so those who are morally injured can survive and thrive.

See what you think and as always, please let me hear from you.

MEMORIAL DAY, WAR, AND THE DEAD WE IGNORE

Posted: 05/28/2012 8:06 am
Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph. D
[This piece is written with Gabriella Lettini and based on our book Soul Repair: Recovering from Moral Injury after War.]

On Memorial Day, President Barack Obama will attend an anniversary ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It’s a long custom for presidents to honor the nation’s war dead. However, it’s a sure bet that he will not honor millions of casualties of war who are not remembered–their families will never be called “Gold Star Families,” even though war killed their soldiers. That’s because many veterans come home alive but are so morally injured that they kill themselves because war destroyed their core moral identity and stole their will to live.

When we send men and women into the atrocity of war, they must violate the core moral values of civilian society. We usually welcome them home with a “thank you for serving” or a parade and then expect them to put the war behind them and to get on with their lives. Our society has failed, thus far however, to take responsibility for supporting moral recovery, and, hence, many who served in war die later, as its moral costs sink in.

It takes a capacity for empathy and a strong sense of moral values to make a healthy person, and it takes a profoundly brutal and morally compromising process to destroy a moral identity. In our work with veterans, we have listened to many struggle with their consciences and the devastating effects of witnessing or taking part in acts that violated their deepest moral beliefs and ethical expectations of others. For some, the suffering becomes unbearable and they can no longer cope with the most basic demands of their lives or even with life itself. These moral wounds of war are different from PTSD and remain largely unaddressed. According to an important VA article on moral injury, the long-term impact can be so “emotionally, psychologically, behaviorally, spiritually, and socially” devastating that it leads to suicide.

To ignore veteran suicides as casualties of war is to abnegate our own moral responsibility for having sent them to fight. It’s also a failure to heed the lessons about the costs of war to our whole society.

President Obama has declared May 28 through November 11, 2012, the Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War: “I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to honor our Vietnam veterans, our fallen, our wounded, those unaccounted for, our former prisoners of war, their families, and all who served with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.”

What does it mean to honor the casualties and survivors of that war?

Some veterans challenge us to honor the dead by telling the truth about war. A week ago, in Chicago, fifty veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars discarded their medals by hurtling them at the site of the biggest NATO summit in sixty years, just as Vietnam veterans did in 1971 outside the US capitol. Alejandro Villatoro, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, opened the public peace ceremony with a vivid description of how war precipitates moral injury:

Veterans of the wars of NATO will … tell us why they chose to return their medals to NATO. I urge you to honor them by listening to their stories. Nowhere else will you hear from so many who fought these wars about their journey from fighting a war to demanding peace. Some of us killed innocents. Some of us helped in continuing these wars from home. Some of us watched our friends die. Some of us are not here, because we took our own lives. We did not get the care promised to us by our government. All of us watched failed policies turn into bloodshed. Listen to us, hear us, and think: was any of this worth it?

One by one, these men and women who had been honored and decorated because of their bravery hurled their medals towards the NATO Summit and reclaimed their moral identities. Former combat medic Jason Hurd confessed: “I’m here to return my Global War on Terror Service Medal in solidarity with the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan. I am deeply sorry for the destruction that we have caused in those countries and around the globe.” Greg Miller, who served the Army infantry in Iraq, stated

The military hands out cheap tokens like this to soldiers, servicemembers, in an attempt to fill the void where their conscience used to be once they indoctrinate it out of you. But that didn’t work on me, so I’m here to return my Global War on Terrorism Medal and my National Defense Medal, because they’re both lies.

Maggie Martin, a sergent who did two tours in Iraq, insisted “No amount of medals, ribbons or flags can cover the amount of human suffering caused by these wars. We don’t want this garbage. We want our human rights. We want our right to heal.” Michael Applegate, in the Navy from 1998 to 2006, declared “I’m returning my medal today because I want to live by my conscience rather than being a prisoner of it.”

While these veterans belonged to groups such Iraq Veterans Against the War, they are not the only veterans to acknowledge moral injury and accept responsibility. Shannon P. Meehan, a retired U.S. Army captain and communications specialist at Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families, also speaks of her sense of having violated deeply held moral beliefs:

By carrying the Purple Heart, whether as a lapel pin or as an image engraved on a coffee mug, I remind myself of a tragedy that I am ultimately responsible for — a violation against humanity. When you see my Purple Heart, you see my sacrifice, but I see and feel much more. I see the people I killed, the civilians I failed to protect, and I am reminded that there will be no Purple Heart for them.

The psychological and emotional effects of combat are often referred to as the “hidden wounds of war.” But given veteran rates of homelessness, unemployment, divorce, depression, incarceration, and suicide, how can such wounds really be invisible or hard to detect? Let’s make Memorial Day 2012 not a National Day of Ignorance, Amnesia, and Nostalgia about war, but a day to face the truth about it and the terrible costs still being paid by those who fought. We cannot begin the arduous journey towards healing and transformation if we lack the honesty and moral courage of the veterans who were sent to fight.

[Origin of Memorial Day:
The first well-known observance of a Memorial Day-type event after the Civil War was in Charleston, South Carolina on May 1, 1865. During the war, Union soldiers who were prisoners of war had been held at the Charleston Race Course; at least 257 Union prisoners died there and were hastily buried in unmarked graves.  Together with teachers and missionaries, blacks in Charleston organized a May Day ceremony in 1865, which was covered by the New York Tribune and other national papers. The freedmen had cleaned up and landscaped the burial ground, building an enclosure and an arch labeled, "Martyrs of the Race Course." Nearly ten thousand people, mostly freedmen, gathered on May 1 to commemorate the dead. Involved were 3,000 schoolchildren newly enrolled in freedmen's schools, mutual aid societies, Union troops, and black ministers and white northern missionaries. Most brought flowers to lay on the burial field. Today the site is used as Hampton Park. Years later, the celebration would come to be called the "First Decoration Day" in the North.]

WHY ARE WE IN VIETGHANISTAN?

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

It’s been a while since my last post.  An extraordinary weekend speaking about CALLED TO SERVE at the Prairie Star District Unitarian Conference in Bloomington, MN, followed by a sweet weekend with my daughter, Annabel, and her family in Ft. Lauderdale explain in part my relative quietude, but I think I was waiting for the article below which spells out what is going to happen to our country and our world if we persist in resorting to war to resolve conflict.  Mr. Camil served in Vietnam and knows up close and personally the havoc war invariably wreaks on all involved.  He minces no words in expressing his anguish about the on-going War in Afghanistan.  He makes the very telling point that our collective outrage and horror at the atrocities committed by U.S. troops simply serves to enable us to avoid the much more telling question – why are we at war in the first place?  He firmly believes that once the dogs of war are released all bets are off and we should not be surprised when troops commit horrible acts.  The central rule of all wars is that there are no rules.  When men and women who are obliged to serve in wars – whether they theoretically volunteered (economic conditions and race still being huge factors) or, as was true for many who served in Vietnam, they were drafted – are trained to kill and to perceive the enemy as less than human so they can do the killing they’re trained to do, there will be atrocities.  Until we find ways to resolve conflict without war, we also are going to be modeling for the next generations the notion that war is the ultimate method of choice when conflicts are seemingly un-resolvable and then the beat simply goes on.

So see what you think of this framing of our moral crisis by one who has been there.

WHY ARE WE IN VIETGHANISTAN?

By Scott Camil, Special to CNN
updated 6:23 PM EDT, Sat May 5, 2012
Scott Camil pictured in a cemetery in Dai Loc, Vietnam in 1967
Scott Camil pictured in a cemetery in Dai Loc, Vietnam in 1967

Editor’s note: Scott Camil is president of the Gainesville, Florida, chapter of Veterans for Peace, a veterans’ organization that aims to raise awareness about the costs of war. He is a former sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps and served four years in Vietnam; his decorations include two Purple Hearts, a Combat Action Ribbon, two Presidential Unit Citations and Good Conduct Medal.

(CNN) — As a veteran of combat in Vietnam, I am often asked about current wars. Recently I have been asked about soldiers posing with corpses or urinating on corpses in Afghanistan. The “patriotic” media wants us to understand what it is like to be a soldier in war, not to condone the conduct but to ask “who are we to judge?” They want to know about rules of war: “Are there rules about taking pictures with dead bodies?”

When I see these pictures, I am not shocked. I have similar pictures from Vietnam. And I’m in them. Such pictures are part of our warrior culture. Not everyone takes them, but they are not in any way unusual.

Look at the famous photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The U.S. soldiers aren’t looking over their shoulders. None of them appears worried about being caught doing something wrong. They all look comfortable, often smiling for the camera. This tells me that the behavior captured in the photographs was S.O.P. (standard operating procedure).

What I find most disconcerting is all this attention to what is done to these dead bodies and absolutely no question or curiosity about why they are dead in the first place. No questions about why U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan at all.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter and Facebook.com/cnnopinion

The idea of having “rules of war” assumes that there is a proper and civilized way to conduct warfare. I find the idea ludicrous. We teach our children to solve their problems without fighting, not by fighting according to rules. For the most part we practice what we preach.

Scott Camil

Scott Camil

The county I live in sued a city that wanted to build a cement plant. The county didn’t want the pollution. A court ruled in favor of the city, and the county lived by the ruling. The county didn’t send the sheriff’s department in to kill some city residents.

Florida is suing Georgia for diverting too much water to Atlanta. Neither state is likely to call out the National Guard if it loses the case.

So why is it that when nations have disputes, we must accept that they will murder and maim each other’s citizens? The conduct of soldiers in war is made up of violent behavior that is criminal behavior outside of war. War is when we allow our loved ones to murder and destroy and then wonder that they are so traumatized.

Misconduct hurts morale, Panetta warns troops

In Vietnam, I lost my first friend at a place known as Alpha North. It was my third week; it changed who I was forever. I realized then and there that my life and the lives of my friends were really at risk. We were in a place where it was the job of the people who lived there to kill us. There was no second chance, no time out. This was for real.

As was typical of our troops, I lost all empathy for the Vietnamese. They all looked the same, and I couldn’t tell the ones who liked us from the ones that wanted us dead. As is also typical in such situations, I chose to err on the side of safety. “F*** the Vietnamese!” was my attitude. We all knew (or thought we knew) that the life of one Marine was worth more than the lives of all of the Vietnamese put together.

If we are going to talk about rules of war, it doesn’t make sense to start with the soldiers and Marines who have been put into that situation. They will all tell you that the first rule is to stay alive. Most people, when asked to choose between obeying the rules, if they believe that harm or death will come to them and their loved ones, or breaking the rules, if they believe it will keep them and their loved ones safe, choose to break the rules. The question is hypothetical to most people, but not to a soldier in combat.

Instead, if we’re going to talk about rules of war, we have to start with the powerful people who chose to put those soldiers there. The No.1 war crime is starting a war, because all other war crimes emanate from that first crime.

I have not been to Afghanistan, but there are some evident similarities between the war there and the war in Vietnam. Call it Vietghanistan. Both are wars of occupation. The people of both countries looked different from us, resulting in racial profiling. They are all suspects, a word that carries a suggestion of guilt.

Neither war has had an actual plan for winning.

When people ask me if we could have won the war in Vietnam, I say that I was taught that the duty of a Marine is to destroy the will of the enemy to resist the authority of the United States of America. The way a Marine performs that duty is to make the price of that resistance more than the enemy can afford.

Opinion: Don’t demonize our troops

In Vietnam “Body Count” was the measure of success. I was told that if we killed 10 Vietnamese for every American, we would win. We more than met that goal without, of course, winning. But our rule was “might makes right” — a philosophy that my father had taught me the United States had defeated in World War II. It seems to be alive and well.

In Afghanistan, the United States supposedly invaded to arrest one man. Last year we were told he’d been executed in Pakistan. What is the mission now?

My mental wounds are more painful than my physical wounds. The cream of my generation was wasted in the rice paddies of Vietnam. All of the sacrifices we made bought nothing but a black marble wall in Washington. It pains me greatly that my country did not learn from Vietnam that it should never again to waste its children on wars of choice, but instead use civilized nonviolent methods of conflict resolution.

Today my country perpetrates the same crimes against my children’s generation. This is unbelievably hard for me to take.

Do we really believe that having rules on how we can murder each other in war makes the murdering clean, acceptable, and civilized behavior? If we developed rules for rape or slavery, would they be acceptable too? Should we bring back dueling and regulate individual murder? Why is murder on a large scale treated so differently from other outrages?

I am told that killing people in war isn’t murder, because it is sanctioned by the government. This reminds me of former president Richard Nixon saying “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” In warfare, the overwhelming majority of those who suffer and are killed are civilians? Does calling them collateral damage really mitigate those losses and make them acceptable? Not to me.

What about the laws on our books that forbid war? The Kellogg-Briand Pact bans all war. The United Nations Charter legalizes two types of wars, neither of which matches most of our current wars. Our wars are neither defensive nor authorized by the U.N. Security Council. And the U.S. Constitution forbids wars not declared by Congress, which has not declared a war since 1941.

As long as we are willing to accept war as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, we must be willing to accept the facts that go with war. Mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles, grandparents and children will die and be maimed both physically and mentally. Some of them will be in uniform, but the majority of them will just be “collateral damage.” Our family members will come home with physical, psychological, and behavioral problems.

We will continue to have military and VA hospitals with waiting lines.

Preparing for these wars means continuing to train our children to hurt and kill other humans. This involves a process of dehumanization that is in conflict with the training required to produce good citizens in a democratic society.

In my training at Parris Island, the citizen was taken out of me and I was rebuilt as a Marine. We had a prayer that we recited every night when we hit the rack:

“Another day in the Corps, Sir, for every day is a holiday and every meal is a feast. Pray for war. Pray for war. God bless the Marine Corps. Pray for war. God bless the Commandant. Pray for war. God bless the drill instructors of 353. Pray for war.”

Are we really willing to continue to accept all of this?

My organization, Veterans For Peace, believes that our stories are our strength. We believe that by educating the public by relating our personal experiences, we can reveal the hard, ugly truth about war. Our collective experience has taught us that war is futile and immoral. We believe that it is abhorrent to think of human beings as “collateral damage,” and we refuse to be silent as our government continues to pursue illegal, immoral wars of aggression. We believe that if the public really saw and understood the truth of war as we do — they would end it.

As long as we continue to accept war as an acceptable means of conflict resolution, things will remain the same.

Work for peace.

 


Bad Behavior has blocked 594 access attempts in the last 7 days.