"Building on Faith" By the Imam of the proposed NYC mosque

Building on Faith

By FEISAL ABDUL RAUF

AS my flight approached America last weekend, my mind circled back to the furor that has broken out over plans to build Cordoba House, a community center in Lower Manhattan.I have been away from home for two months, speaking abroad about cooperation among people from different religions. Every day, including the past two weeks spent representing my country on a State Department tour in the Middle East, I have been struck by how the controversy has riveted the attention of Americans, as well as nearly everyone I met in my travels.

We have all been awed by how inflamed and emotional the issue of the proposed community center has become. The level of attention reflects the degree to which people care about the very American values under debate: recognition of the rights of others, tolerance and freedom of worship.

Many people wondered why I did not speak out more, and sooner, about this project. I felt that it would not be right to comment from abroad. It would be better if I addressed these issues once I returned home to America, and after I could confer with leaders of other faiths who have been deliberating with us over this project. My life’s work has been focused on building bridges between religious groups and never has that been as important as it is now.

We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House. More important, we are doing so with the support of the downtown community, government at all levels and leaders from across the religious spectrum, who will be our partners. I am convinced that it is the right thing to do for many reasons.

Above all, the project will amplify the multifaith approach that the Cordoba Initiative has deployed in concrete ways for years. Our name, Cordoba, was inspired by the city in Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Middle Ages during a period of great cultural enrichment created by Muslims. Our initiative is intended to cultivate understanding among all religions and cultures.

Our broader mission — to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology — lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.

From the political conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians to the building of a community center in Lower Manhattan, Muslims and members of all faiths must work together if we are ever going to succeed in fostering understanding and peace.

At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing.

Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.

I do not underestimate the challenges that will be involved in bringing our work to completion. (Construction has not even begun yet.) I know there will be interest in our financing, and so we will clearly identify all of our financial backers.

Lost amid the commotion is the good that has come out of the recent discussion. I want to draw attention, specifically, to the open, law-based and tolerant actions that have taken place, and that are particularly striking for Muslims.

President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg both spoke out in support of our project. As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders. It was striking: a Christian president and a Jewish mayor of New York supporting the rights of Muslims. Their statements sent a powerful message about what America stands for, and will be remembered as a milestone in improving American-Muslim relations.

The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides. The paradigm of a clash between the West and the Muslim world will continue, as it has in recent decades at terrible cost. It is a paradigm we must shift.

From those who recognize our rights, from grassroots organizers to heads of state, I sense a global desire to build on this positive momentum and to be part of a global movement to heal relations and bring peace. This is an opportunity we must grasp.

I therefore call upon all Americans to rise to this challenge. Let us commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 by pausing to reflect and meditate and tone down the vitriol and rhetoric that serves only to strengthen the radicals and weaken our friends’ belief in our values.

The very word “islam” comes from a word cognate to shalom, which means peace in Hebrew. The Koran declares in its 36th chapter, regarded by the Prophet Muhammad as the heart of the Koran, in a verse deemed the heart of this chapter, “Peace is a word spoken from a merciful Lord.”

How better to commemorate 9/11 than to urge our fellow Muslims, fellow Christians and fellow Jews to follow the fundamental common impulse of our great faith traditions?
====================

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the chairman of the Cordoba Initiative and the imam of the Farah mosque in Lower Manhattan.

OIF-OEF Class Action PTSD Lawsuit Extension

JUDGE EXTENDS DEADLINE TO JOIN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BY THREE MONTHS FOR OEF/OIF VETS WITH PTSD WHO WERE SHORTCHANGED ON BENEFITSVeterans’ advocates win extension through November 10, 2010 for Sabo v. United States
NVLSP calls on friends and families of OEF/OIF vets to encourage class members to “opt-in”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 16, 2010

WASHINGTON— Veterans discharged from military service due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008 and shortchanged on their military benefits have three additional months to join a class action lawsuit, thanks to a critical deadline extension.

Last Thursday, Judge George W. Miller of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims signed an order giving eligible veterans – almost all of whom served in Iraq or Afghanistan -- until November 10, 2010 to join (or “opt-in to”) Sabo v. United States, a class action lawsuit brought in December 2008 by the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and pro-bono counsel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

As a result of an agreement reached with the military services, veterans who join the lawsuit are guaranteed a disability rating upgrade and expedited records review, which can potentially lead to additional financial benefits and improved healthcare for veterans and their families.

Approximately, 42 percent, or 1,835 veterans, signed and sent in “Opt-in Forms” before the original July 24, 2010 deadline, making them class members in the lawsuit. At least 2,623 other veterans are eligible to join the lawsuit and become class members.

Class notices were mailed to 4,400 Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans in January 2010. However, many notices were returned as undeliverable by the post office.

Using government sources and public records research, NVLSP staff attorneys called more than 600 eligible veterans as the July 24 deadline approached. They found that many veterans did not understand the legal notice they received in the mail, or never received it.

“More than a third of the eligible veterans are severely disabled, with VA disability ratings for PTSD of 70 to 100 percent,” said Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the NVLSP. “It’s not easy for them to understand the legal notice and what are the advantages of joining the lawsuit, even though they stand to potentially gain significant lifetime financial and healthcare benefits for themselves and their families.”

Stichman says NVLSP plans to continue calling eligible veterans over the next three months, but is also asking families and friends of eligible veterans to get involved and talk with the veterans.

“Anyone who knows an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran discharged between December 17, 2002and October 14, 2008 because of PTSD should ask if he or she has received a legal notice and opted into this lawsuit,” said Stichman. “These veterans and their families were treated unjustly and denied the benefits to which they were entitled. This is about getting them the lifetime military benefits that they have earned and deserve. More information is available at www.ptsdlawsuit.com.”

Eligible veterans who join the lawsuit are entitled to review of their PTSD disability rating by the military on a priority basis, a guaranteed correction of military records to show a higher military disability rating for PTSD for the six-month period following the date of release from military service, as well as a determination of whether the new rating should be permanently increased, decreased, or remain the same after the six-month period.

The correction of military records will not change the disability ratings that the veteran may have from the VA and no eligible veteran who opts into the lawsuit will risk losing any other military or VA benefits that he or she is already receiving. Nearly all class members who have already gone through the prioritized review with the military have received higher disability ratings and better benefits.

As a result of an increase in their military rating for PTSD, class members may receive back pay of disability benefits, reimbursement for healthcare expenses the military should have covered, as well as a higher amount of future benefits to which they and their families are entitled—potentially millions of dollars in benefits over time.

One hundred volunteer lawyers stand ready to offer free counseling to all class members. The lawyers for the veterans from NVLSP and Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP are donating their services for free. The lawyers involved say their payment is knowing an injustice is being righted for those who have served our country.

The disability ratings which are the subject of the lawsuit are critically important to ensuring veterans receive the benefits which they have earned and deserve. For years, the law has required the military to assign a disability rating of at least 50 percent to all veterans discharged for PTSD. A permanent disability rating of 30 percent or more entitles a veteran to monthly disability benefits for the rest of the veteran’s life, to free lifetime health care for the veteran and his or her spouse, and to free health care for their minor children.

All of the veterans who qualify as class members for this lawsuit were illegally discharged from the military with military disability ratings for PTSD of less than 50 percent. After they were discharged, many of them obtained a higher disability rating for PTSD from the VA, but the lawsuit is aimed at getting these veterans a higher military disability rating and with enhanced military disability benefits that accompany a higher military disability rating.

WHO CAN BE A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?All individuals who:
(a) served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force,
(b) were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be unfit for continued service due, at least in part, to the individual’s PTSD,
(c) were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less than 50 percent, and, as a result,
(d) were released, separated, retired, or discharged from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14, 2008 (regardless of whether such release, separation, retirement, or discharge resulted in the individual’s placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List).

VETERANS WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT

Veterans who have not received the legal notice, but who believe they may qualify as a class member, should go to www.ptsdlawsuit.com or call 877-345-8387 for more information.
======================
ABOUT NVLSP
The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is an independent, nonprofit veteran service organization that has served active duty military personnel and veterans since 1980. NVLSP strives to ensure that our nation honors its commitment to its 25 million veterans and active duty personnel by providing them the federal benefits they have earned through their service to our country. NVSLP offers training for attorneys and other advocates, connects veterans and active duty personnel with pro bono legal help, publishes the nation’s definitive guide on veterans’ benefits, and represents and litigates for veterans and their families before the VA, military discharge review agencies, and federal courts. For more information go to www.nvlsp.org.



ABOUT MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Morgan Lewis provides comprehensive transactional, litigation, labor and employment, and intellectual property legal services to clients of all sizes—from global Fortune 100 companies to just-conceived startups—across all major industries. Its international team of attorneys, patent agents, employee benefits advisors, regulatory scientists, and other specialists—nearly 3,000 professionals total—serves clients from 23 offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia. For more information about Morgan Lewis or its practices, please visit: www.morganlewis.com.



###

The Time to Leave Iraq is Now

Military memo on Iraq: Time to leave
Blunt military assessment comes despite Iraqi forces' ongoing problems
By Michael R. Gordon
The New York Times
updated 1545 EST, July 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - A senior American military adviser in Baghdad has concluded in an unusually blunt memo that the Iraqi forces suffer from deeply entrenched deficiencies but are now capable of protecting the Iraqi government, and that it is time “for the U.S. to declare victory and go home.”

Prepared by Col. Timothy R. Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi military’s Baghdad command, the memorandum asserts that the Iraqi forces have an array of problems, including corruption, poor management and the inability to resist political pressure from Shiite political parties.

For all of these problems, however, Colonel Reese argues that Iraqi forces are competent enough to hold off Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and other internal threats to the Iraqi government. Extending the American military presence in Iraq beyond 2010, he argues, will do little to improve the Iraqis’ military performance while fueling a growing resentment.

“As the old saying goes, ‘Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days,’ ” Colonel Reese wrote. “Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”

Not the official stance of U.S. military
A spokeswoman for Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior American commander in Iraq, said that the memo did not reflect the official stance of the United States military, was not intended for a broad audience, and that some of the problems the memo referred to had been solved since its writing in early July.

Referring to the Iraq Security Forces, the memo said: “The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces with I.S.F. isn’t yielding benefits commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition. We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months.”

Before deploying to Iraq, Colonel Reese served as the director of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, the Army’s premier intellectual center. He was an author of an official Army history of the Iraq war — “On Point II” — that was sharply critical of the lapses in postwar planning.

Colonel Reese’s memo comes at a sensitive time in the Iraq conflict as American forces are gradually shifting to an advisory role. American combat troops moved out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities last month, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement concluded by the United States and Iraq.

Colonel Reese’s memo lists a number of problems that have emerged since the withdrawal. They include, he wrote, a “sudden coolness” to American advisers and the “forcible takeover” of a checkpoint in the Green Zone. Iraqi units, he added, are much less willing to conduct joint operations with their American counterparts “to go after targets the U.S. considers high value.”

The Iraqi Ground Forces Command, Colonel Reese wrote, has imposed “unilateral restrictions” on American military operations that “violate the most basic aspects” of American-Iraqi agreement.

“The Iraqi legal system in the Rusafa side of Baghdad has demonstrated a recent willingness to release individuals originally detained by the U.S. for attacks on the U.S.,” he added.

The spokeswoman for General Odierno, Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, responded in a e-mail to questions about the memo. “The e-mail was written by Col. Timothy Reese at the beginning of July and sent to selected personnel within Multi-National Division Baghdad on our classified e-mail system,” Colonel Aberle wrote. “It was expressed to a limited audience, and not meant for wider/general distribution.

“The e-mail reflects one person’s personal view at the time we were first implementing the Security Agreement post-30 June. It does not reflect the official views of U.S. Forces in Iraq. Since that time many of the initial issues have been resolved and our partnerships with Iraqi Security Forces and G.O.I. partners now are even stronger than before 30 June.” G.O.I. is the abbreviation for Government of Iraq.

Rapid reduction in American forcesUnder the plan developed by General Odierno, the vast majority of the approximately 130,000 American forces in Iraq will remain through Iraq’s national elections, which are expected to be held next January. After the elections and the formation of a new Iraqi government, there will be rapid reduction in American forces. By the end of August 2010, the United States would have no more than 50,000 troops in Iraq, which would include six brigades whose primary role would be to advise and train Iraqi troops.

Some experts, such as Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to General David H. Petraeus, have argued that this timetable may be too fast given the host of remaining problems in Iraq, including differences between Kurds and Arab leaders, remaining Sunni-Shiite tensions and the possibility that the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki might become more authoritarian.

“Renewed violence in Iraq is not inevitable, but it is a serious risk,” Mr. Biddle wrote in a recent paper. “A vigorous preventive strategy is clearly preferable, therefore. The most effective option for prevention is to go slow in drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Measures to maximize U.S. leverage on important Iraqi leaders — especially Maliki — can be helpful in steering Iraqis away from confrontation and violence, but U.S. leverage is a function of U.S. presence.”

During his recent appearance in Washington, Mr. Maliki also appeared to be contemplating a possible role for American forces after the December 2011 deadline for the removal of all American troops under the Status of Forces Agreement.

The Iraqi prime minister noted in an appearance at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based research organization, that the Status of Forces Agreement, would “end” the American military presence in his country in 2011. “Nevertheless, if Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this at that time based on the needs of Iraq,” he said.

During his visit to Iraq earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated that might be a “modest acceleration” in the number of American forces that are withdrawn from Iraq this year. At the same time, Pentagon and military officials indicated that Kurdish-Arab friction remains a serious worry and that the American advisory role is still very important.

'Incapable of change'
But Colonel Reese questioned the value of an extended advisory role.

“If there ever was a window where the seeds of a professional military culture could have been implanted, it is now long past. U.S. combat forces will not be here long enough or with sufficient influence to change it,” he wrote. “The military culture of the Baathist-Soviet model under Saddam Hussein remains entrenched and will not change. The senior leadership of the I.S.F. is incapable of change in the current environment.”

Colonel Reese appears to have anonymously circulated a less colorful version of his memo on a blog dubbed “The Enchanter’s Corner.” The author is described as an active-duty Army officer serving as an adviser in Iraq who is “passionate about political issues.” Since word of the memo began to spread, the memo has been removed from the site.

Nation At War Loses Its Interest

Nation At War Loses Its Interest

By Frida Ghitis
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
July 17, 2009

As Americans followed the news about Michael Jackson's death with an interest bordering on obsession, the situation for American forces fighting in Afghanistan became deadlier than ever.

The day before Jackson's memorial service extravaganza -- watched by more than 30 million television v! iewers -- brought the worst one-day losses for the United States in almost a year. Seven soldiers died that day in Afghanistan, and the deaths have continued to mount for the U.S. and its allies.

Still, few people seem to have more than a passing interest in a war that seems so distant as to appear almost unreal.

The same people who planted "War is Not the Answer" signs in their yards to protest the Iraq conflict have little to say about this war. Afghanistan, after all, is more difficult to paint with broad strokes of black and white.

If you hated George W. Bush, you hated the Iraq war. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has become Barack Obama's war. And Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq, came to office as a hero of the anti-war movement, even if he always said he did not oppose all wars, "only dumb ones."

Perhaps the challenge of deciding if this is a "dumb war" has become a hurdle too high to jump. As a result, people have tuned out.

A look a! t the most popular story lists on news Web sites betrays a lack of con cern for what is happening in Afghanistan that can only bring more despair to the families receiving the throat-closing news that their loved ones' lives have ended.

By some counts, July is already the deadliest month in eight years of war. According to icasualties.org, a Web site keeping track of US and allied casualties, 737 Americans have died in Afghanistan since the war started a few weeks after Sept. 11. At this writing, 45 coalition soldiers had already died in July alone. By the time you read this, the numbers may have grown.

And yet, the New York Times lists of most searched, most e-mailed and most blogged stories in the last seven and 30 days does not even show Afghanistan in the rankings. As I write this, the list for the most popular searches of the past 24 hours, shows Afghanistan at No. 42, far behind queries such as, "Palin," "iPhone" or, of course, "sex."

The British, who lost 15 soldiers in the past 10 days, have engaged in a fierce debate ! over what their troops have faced on the Afghan battlefield. Both major parties agree on the worthiness of the mission, but the government faces angry complaints about inadequate equipment.

As the deadly summer continues to unfold, Americans will eventually, if reluctantly, begin to cast their attention to Afghanistan. Sooner or later we will ponder the key question: Is this war worth the cost?

Some possibly forgot why Americans even went there. In Afghanistan, the U.S. faces the Taliban, religious fanatics who all but imprisoned their women and oppressed the population with a brutally extreme interpretation of Islam.

More importantly for America, they gave Osama Bin Laden a place to train al-Qaida operatives and plan the Sept. 11 attacks that killed more than 3,000 Americans. The Taliban lost power after the U.S. retaliated. But while Washington focused on Iraq they regrouped and regained territory. The Taliban in Afghanistan are closely linked with their! brethren in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

If Obama faces difficult ch allenges today, what will happen if the current strategy to push back the Taliban fails. Then what? Obama already ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. By the time the country holds elections this fall, 68,000 Americans will stand on Afghan soil. If the country begins unraveling, Obama will have to decide whether to double down or accept defeat and withdraw. Withdrawal could hand the Taliban a base from which to attack the West and achieve their stated goal of seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If Obama decides to pour more American forces into the war effort, he could risk the same fate as presidents before him, who have seen their presidencies consumed, almost destroyed, by increasingly unpopular wars.

Whether we like it or not, America remains at war. The stakes remain high, and we will eventually have to pay attention. Until now, most Americans have found it easy to look away, focus on celebrity news and other items that may tug at the heart strings ! but are less consequential to the future of the country. That must soon change.

Frida Ghitis, a world affairs columnist in Decatur, is the author of "The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television."

Pentagon Backs Off Smoking Ban - Common Sense Prevails

Pentagon won't ban war-zone smoking, despite study

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Smoke 'em if you got 'em. The Pentagon reassured troops Wednesday that it won't ban tobacco products in war zones. Defense officials hadn't actually planned to eliminate smoking — at least for now. But fear of a ban arose among some troops after the Defense Department received a study recommending the military move toward becoming tobacco-free — perhaps in about 20 years.

Press secretary Geoff Morrell pointedly told a Pentagon news conference that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not planning to prohibit the use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products by troops in combat.

"He knows that the situation they are confronting is stressful enough as it is," Morrell said, noting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I don't think he is interested in adding to the stress levels by taking away one of the few outlets they may have to relieve stress."

Gates will review the new study to see if there are some things than can be done to work toward the goal of having a smoke-free force some day, Morrell said.

"Obviously, it's not our preference to have a force that is using tobacco products," he said, noting health concerns and the high cost of caring for health-related problems.

The study, commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department, recommended that the military start making incremental moves toward becoming smoke-free. The report by the Institute of Medicine suggested the services could start by banning smoking at military academies, then among recruits. It said the VA and Pentagon should eliminate use of tobacco on its facilities and the military should stop selling tobacco products at its commissaries.

The military and VA have been working for years to reduce smoking among soldiers and vets through a number of programs. The Pentagon laid out a plan in 1999 to reduce smoking rates by 5 percent a year and reduce chewing tobacco use to 15 percent by 2001 — and still wasn't able to achieve the goals.

"Tobacco use declined overall from 1980 to 2005, but there has recently been an increase in consumption, possibly because of increased tobacco use by deployed troops," the study said.

The military hasn't placed a high enough priority on reducing tobacco use, according to the study, and that while smoking has declined in the U.S., it remains higher in the military than in the civilian world.

In 2005, a third of members of the active-duty military smoked compared to a fifth of the adult U.S. population, the study said, adding that it "has been implicated in" higher dropout rates during and after basic training, higher absenteeism in the military and other problems.

Criticism of the proposals spread across the Internet and among troops.

"Our troops make enough sacrifices to serve our nation," said Brian Wise, executive director of the advocacy group Military Families United. "They give up many of the freedoms civilians enjoy already without being told they cannot partake in yet another otherwise legal activity."

+

Marine vs. Army Recruiting

As the Army takes the day off to reflect on their recruting "issues", the Marine Corps is ahead of their recruiting numbers every month. In fact, even areas like the northeast United States, which include such wealthly and collge-oriented areas likes Fairfield County, CT., Somerset County, NJ, and Bucks County, PA - the Marines EXCEEDED their mission by 150+ recruits.

Army Recruiting Takes Mandatory Stand-Down
February 12, 2009
Military.com|by Bryant Jordan
Every recruiter in the Army is taking a time out tomorrow. And between mid-March and mid-July, pretty much every other command in the Army will be taking one, as well, all in an effort to help troops, Army civilians and their families deal with the stresses of Army life.

But its the recruiting command -- which has been in the spotlight recently over a rash of suicides and claims of unrealistic pressures put on recruiters -- that will stand down first. On Feb. 13, the command’s leaders will conduct a multi-phase training and education program with an emphasis on dealing with the stresses that could cause a Joe to take his own life.

The time-out will in part be used "to discuss suicide prevention and wellness resources available to the Soldiers, Department of the Army civilians and family members in recruiting command," Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith told Military.com.

The command is made up of 38 recruiting battalions and five brigades whose mission it is to bring in new blood for the largest of the four military branches.

While stress on Soldiers and their families is an Army-wide problem, recruiting command saw a string of suicides -- 15 since 2003. Four of the suicides occurred between 2005 and 2008 in the Houston Recruiting Command, a spike that prompted an Army investigation.

That investigation, concluded in January, found that poor leadership, job-related stress, personal and medical problems contributed to the deaths. Army Secretary Pete Geren subsequently ordered the stand down slated for tomorrow, officials said.

While the Army was looking at the Houston Recruiting Command for its investigation, Military.com reported in December that Oklahoma City Command recruiters were dealing with their own stress-related issues, including claims of overly long hours, unrealistic demands by supervisors and the pressure to fudge paperwork to qualify applicants who otherwise would not meet standards.

One of the recruiters who previously talked to Military.com said recently that "the [Army] leadership is not happy [with commanders] blaming the recruiters for the problems, rather than looking at failed policies at company and battalion level."

The Oklahoma City recruiters told Military.com in December they have seen the same kinds of stresses plaguing their colleagues that Houston-area recruiters have been through. Two of the recruiters estimated that at least 30 percent of the roughly 200 recruiters in the Oklahoma City battalion are on anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications. Some also are taking drugs illegally to cope with pressures of the job, they said.

While a third recruiter declined to offer an estimate of how many battalion recruiters were self-medicating or on prescription medications, he said he knows "a lot of guys are taking anti-anxiety" meds. Some want to get on the meds, he said, because it helps keep their supervisors "off their backs." An Army spokesman said Dec. 24, in response to a Military.com query, that the Army probably does not track the number of Soldiers on prescription medications.

Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, the Oklahoma City battalion commander, said in his order for the stand down that his "intent is for commanders at Company and Station level to take the lead and provide information and receive feedback on wellness resources available to Soldiers, civilians and family members" associated with the battalion.

The order, dated Jan. 29, says training will be held at battalion headquarters as well as at the various companies making up the district: Oklahoma City, Lawton, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Tulsa and Texarkana. All training is to be done in person, the order stipulates and facilitated by company commanders.

The training will include video presentations and group guided discussions.

According to a battalion operation order dated Jan. 29, the day-long program will be done in four phases -- leader training, individual training of all recruiters, an open forum led by the unit commander and a climate survey that will be conducted afterwards. The climate survey is to be completed no later than Feb. 17, the order states.

Purple Hearts & PTSD ?

PTSD And The Purple Heart

New York Times
Jan 12, 2009


The Pentagon’s recent decision not to award the Purple Heart to soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder strikes us as reasonable and well considered. This is not to say that the result was uncomplicated or unlikely to cause understandable sadness and pain.

The military has always honored the sacrifice of veterans who are wounded in its wars. But it has been slow to recognize that those wounds can include invisible injuries: the nightmares, rages and terrors of PTSD, which are as real as any scar or missing limb.

PTSD can be difficult to diagnose, with symptoms that can arise later in life, far from the battlefield and are not necessarily linked to any specific actions of an enemy. So the Pentagon contends that it has no choice but to exclude its sufferers from the Purple Heart, given to those whose injuries result from direct and intentional action by the enemy. Doing so would not debase the medal, as some defenders of the Purple Heart callously put it, but it would change it, perhaps in unintended and unwelcome ways.

The main criterion for awarding the Purple Heart has always been bloodshed. Those looking for absolute fairness in this distinction will never find it: a soldier who cowers or blunders into harm’s way will receive his medal just as surely as his quick-thinking, unscathed buddy will not. A soldier whose lacerations heal completely will wear the same medal as someone who has lost a limb or been paralyzed for life.

None of this relieves the military of its duty to fully honor those whose injuries are unseen. A Purple Heart may not be the answer — not until, perhaps, advances in brain science bring full objectivity to the diagnosis of mental injury. But PTSD sufferers surely deserve medical care every bit as diligent and excellent as what their fellow veterans receive for more visible injuries. The Pentagon has been prodded to do so by the deadly innovation of the current war: the bomb blasts that have exacted such a deadly toll in brain injuries.

The military is, in fact, moving forward merely by mentioning PTSD and the Purple Heart in the same breath. Imagine Gen. George Patton, who so notoriously slapped a quivering enlisted man, learning that his beloved Army was even considering giving medals to those whose combat tours left them mentally shattered.

But there is far more to do. Recent veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan will tell you that the military stigma against mental illness has not abated, that the combat ethos — suck it up, soldier — persists and that some officers continue to belittle the severity, and even question the existence, of post-traumatic stress.

At least 300,000 service members who were in Afghanistan or Iraq show symptoms of PTSD. They know a truth their forebears of Vietnam, Korea and World War II have lived with for years: war injures everyone it touches.