Wounded Warriors Need VA To Step Up

Wounded Warrior Project calls on Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the White House to make good on promised benefits.Caregivers of veterans recovering from Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) at risk for being left out of Congressionally mandated benefits by VA

Jacksonville, FL (March 7, 2011) As we enter Brain Injury Awareness Month, the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) is committed to ensuring that veterans injured during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and their caregivers receive the benefits included in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act signed into law last year by President Obama.

“In 2010, Congress put assistance in place to ensure that the caregivers of these brave men and women are able to continue providing the necessary support for their recovery,” said Steve Nardizzi, Executive Director of WWP. “Nearly a year later and ironically coinciding with Brain Injury Awareness Month, family caregivers of as many as 2,500 severely brain-injured warriors may now be ineligible to receive benefits promised under a plan the VA continues to defend.”

“Last month, the VA submitted a plan that would shrink the number of families qualifying for benefits by more than three-quarters, hitting those with cognitive and related brain-injury impairments hardest,” Nardizzi continued. “It is unacceptable for the Administration to deviate so dramatically from the clear direction Congress set, and jeopardize the care of these service members to meet a new agenda.”

TBI has emerged as one of the signature wounds of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, amazing strides have been made in the medical intervention and treatment of TBI. But with that comes a long road of treatment and care for these veterans when they return home. It’s a labor of love for the family caregivers of these severely wounded warriors, but also an all-consuming one in which many families have had to commit all of their resources to their loved one’s recovery process.

In providing for caregiver assistance, Congress clearly specified that the law covers caregivers of veterans who sustained traumatic brain injury in the line of duty and who were “in need of personal care services because of…a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury.” It is apparent when reviewing the Act as a whole, that the rehabilitation of veterans with traumatic brain injury was an intended goal with respect to each of these provisions.

WWP is calling on the Administration and the VA to recognize the severity and complexity of these injuries and guarantee that these American heroes and their families are provided the best support and care possible.

Join the effort to secure what has been promised to the caregivers of our nation’s heroes:

Visit us on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/caregiversNOW Learn more at www.woundedwarriorproject.org ==========
About Wounded Warrior Project

The mission of the Wounded Warrior Project® (WWP) is to honor and empower wounded warriors. WWP’s purpose is to raise awareness and to enlist the public’s aid for the needs of injured service members, to help injured servicemen and women aid and assist each other, and to provide unique, direct programs and service to meet their needs. WWP is a national, nonpartisan organization headquartered in Jacksonville, FL. To get involved and learn more, visit woundedwarriorproject.org.

DADT statement from Milbloggers

There was a recent exchange of letters between Sen. Levin and Sec. Def. Gates about the study the military is doing about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In it Sec. Gates confirmed that the military was looking at how best to implement the policy on the assumption that the rule would be changed. He also asked Congress to wait until the study was completed so any action they took would be based on the advice of the services. A number of Milbloggers agree with this and are releasing the following joint statement // From Jim Hanson; Blckfive

JOINT STATEMENT FROM MILITARY BLOGGERS 12 MAY 2010

We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue.

Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting those displaying open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. And yet, very little will actually change. Homosexuals have always served in the US Military, and there have been no real problems caused by that.

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Signed:
Matt Burden- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Jim Hanson- Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Blake Powers- BLACKFIVE
Fred Schoenman- BLACKFIVE
David Bellavia- House to House
Bruce McQuain- Q&O
JD Johannes- Outside the Wire
Diane Frances McInnis Miller- Boston Maggie
Mark Seavey- This Ain't Hell
Michael St. Jacques- The Sniper
Mary Ripley- US Naval Institute Blog
John Donovan- Castle Argghhh!
Andrew Lubin- The Military Observer
Marc Danziger- Winds of Change
Greta Perry- Hooah Wife

New Marine Offensive !!

Dec. 4, 2009

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Helmand Province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan –

More than 1,000 International Security Assistance Force personnel partnered with Afghan National Security Forces personnel have begun operations in northern Helmand province to clear insurgent forces from a key area.

More than 150 Afghan soldiers and police and approximately 900 U.S. Marines and sailors from Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan and British forces from Task Force Helmand are participating in Operation Khareh Cobra (Cobra’s Anger) to clear insurgent forces in the Now Zad valley.

Marines from 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7 and 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion are partnered with Afghan Army and police and with Task Force Helmand’s Battle Group (North West) and Brigade Reconnaissance Force. The forces began heliborne and ground insertions into the Now Zad valley early Friday morning to secure key terrain and allow the introduction of follow-on forces.

Now Zad was once Helmand’s second-largest city, but is now empty due to years of fighting. Insurgents have heavily mined the area, and a key purpose of the operation is to provide enough security for the Afghan government and non-governmental organizations to begin clearing the mines and improvised explosive devices in order to enable eventual repopulation of the city.

A company of Marines from 3/4 is stationed in Now Zad, along with 150 Afghan soldiers and police.

MEB-Afghanistan is a subordinate unit of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. The combined U.S. and Afghan mission is to provide security for population centers and connect local citizens with their legitimate government while establishing stable and secure conditions.

TTP in Afghanistan

TTP in Afghanistan

After six weeks in Afghanistan, those slight differences between the branches of our Armed Forces finally became noticeable. For the sake of all you deskbound strategists, and in an attempt to avoid writing something serious today, I’ve taken a few minutes to summarize these differences for you:

MARINE CORPS Rules:
1 – Be polite, be courteous, and have a plan that includes killing everyone.
2 – Have a back-up plan, with same goal
3 – Anything worth shooting is worth shooting at least twice. Ammo is cheap; your
life is not.
4 – Do not carry any handgun whose caliber does not start with a ‘4’
5 – It’s not cheating if you live. Cheat often.
6 – Marine Artillery; Reach out and touch someone with H.E.
6 – No one remembers what caliber, stance, or tactics you used; they’ll only
remember who lived and who didn’t.

ARMY RANGER Rules:
1 – Walk 50 miles carrying 75 lbs to capture HVT’s
2 – Curse bitterly when Army Higher refuses permission to kill HVT’s because ISAF
doesn’t want to hurt Taliban’s feelings.
3 – Walk out 50 miles hoping Air Force doesn’t mistake you for an HVT

NAVY SEAL Rules:
1 – Look cool in sunglasses
2 – Stuff washcloth down speedo to impress (the Afghans love this!)
3 – Imitate Marines

US ARMY Rules:
1 - Curse bitterly when ordered off FOB into the field.
2 – Inspect XBOX and Play Stations, assume your rifle will clean itself
3 – Practice falling back on chowhall if attacked.
4 – Check on ice cream supplies; ammunition will take care of itself.

US AIR FORCE Rules:
1 – Adjust temps on air conditioner in private trailer
2 – Enjoy a cocktail
3 – Drop bombs. Let someone else wonder how those targets Nellis identified as HVT’s
turned into women and children
4 – Worry about making 1330 tee-time
5 – Wonder who lost those pesky nuclear weapons again
6 – Enjoy a cocktail

US NAVY Rules:
1 – Go to Sea
2 - Drink coffee
3 - Deploy Marines

Obama & Staff Discuss Additional Troop Levels

Advisers To Obama Divided On Size Of Afghan Force

By Peter Baker and Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times
September 4, 2009

WASHINGTON — The military’s anticipated request for more troops to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they try to determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday.

Even before the top commander in Afghanistan submits his proposal for additional forces, administration officials have begun what one called a “healthy debate” about what the priorities should be and whether more American soldiers and Marines would help achieve them.

Leading those with doubts is Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has expressed deep reservations about an expanded presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that it may distract from what he considers the more urgent goal of stabilizing Pakistan, officials said. Among those on the other side are Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to the region, who shares the concern about Pakistan but sees more troops as vital to protecting Afghan civilians and undermining the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been vocal in favor of more troops, and while some officials said she had not shown her hand during the current deliberations, they expected her to be an advocate for a more robust force.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has voiced concern that putting so many troops in Afghanistan would make the United States look like an occupier, but during a news conference on Thursday he sounded more supportive of the prospect.

“There is a unanimity of opinion about what our objective is, and the objective is to disable and destroy Al Qaeda and remove that threat to our national security,” said David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser. “Obviously, there are a variety of opinions about how best to achieve that objective, and it’s valuable and important to hear those views.”

The emerging debate follows the delivery Monday of a new strategic assessment by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took over all American and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June. Mr. Gates has now forwarded the general’s report of about 25 pages to Mr. Obama.

Although General McChrystal included no specific force proposals in his review, officials expect him to send a separate request in the coming weeks. Military strategists, including one who has advised General McChrystal, said he might offer three options. The smallest proposed reinforcement, from 10,000 to 15,000 troops, would be described as the high-risk option. A medium-risk option would involve sending about 25,000 more troops, and a low-risk option would call for sending about 45,000 troops.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, cautioned that talk about troop levels was speculation. “Anyone who tells you that they know how many troops the commander is going to ask for and the options he may or may not present doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because that has not been determined yet,” Mr. Morrell said. He said that Mr. Gates had not made up his mind about what he would recommend to the president.

Mr. Gates could be the key adviser on this decision, and some military analysts predicted that he might recommend what Pentagon officials call the “Goldilocks option” — the medium-risk one in the middle. Because he was first appointed by President George W. Bush, Mr. Gates could provide political cover for Mr. Obama should the president reject the biggest possible buildup.

Mr. Gates has long been worried that a large number of American forces would alienate the Afghan population. But at a news conference with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Gates said Thursday that his concerns about the American “footprint” had been mitigated by General McChrystal, who has indicated that the size of the force is less important than what it does.

“Where foreign forces have had a large footprint and failed, in no small part it has been because the Afghans concluded they were there for their own imperial interests and not there for the interests of the Afghan people,” Mr. Gates said. But he said that General McChrystal’s emphasis on reducing civilian casualties and interacting more with Afghans “has given us a greater margin of error in that respect.”

Mr. Obama has already ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this year for a total American force of 68,000, on top of 40,000 NATO troops. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Holbrooke pushed for those reinforcements, while Mr. Biden resisted. “It is true that Hillary was very forceful; I had some disagreement in degree with her,” Mr. Biden later told USA Today. “The president ended up landing on a spot that was where she was.”

Mr. Biden has argued that a sizable increase in resources for Afghanistan invariably means less for Pakistan, a concern born out of his frustration as a senator during the Bush administration pushing for more aid to Islamabad. In some ways, he has told colleagues, Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan because extremism is on the rise there, Al Qaeda has operating room and the government of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, remains vulnerable.

Other American officials said they worried that General McChrystal simply did not have enough forces to turn around Afghanistan. Mr. Holbrooke just returned from Afghanistan, where he heard from military officers who said they needed more help to execute General McChrystal’s strategy of protecting the population from the Taliban, rather than just hunting militants.

As the president’s senior uniformed adviser, Admiral Mullen has said he worries about the impact of a buildup on the nation’s already stretched armed forces. In July, Mr. Gates announced a temporary increase of 22,000 troops in the size of the Army.

Mediating the debate will be Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser. “My job is to make sure the process works the way the president wants and everybody is at the table,” he said. “I try to be open-minded and not prejudice anything.”

He said he would ensure that dissidents got to voice their views to Mr. Obama. “He encourages vigorous debate,” General Jones said. “The thing not to do in a meeting with the president is to sit on your hands and hope you don’t get called on, because that’s a guarantee that you’re going to get called on.”

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."

+

Update: Operation Khandjar

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 8, 2009 6 p.m. local time

KHAN NESHIN, Helmand Province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan –

The Afghan national flag was raised above Khan Neshin castle in the Rig District Center July 8 for the first time, signaling the arrival of Afghan governance in the southern reaches of Helmand Province.

Khan Neshin and the areas south of the Helmand River have never experienced the sustained presence of coalition forces or Afghan National Security Forces, until now, seven days after the beginning of Operation Khanjar.

“The number one question we get from the people is, ‘when are you leaving?’” said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commanding general of Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan. “The answer is we’re not leaving until the transition for security is made to the provincial government, to include the Afghan forces.”

Afghans from the local populace came to Khan Neshin shortly after the flag was raised, where they heard statements from Helmand Governor Gulab Mangal and newly-appointed Rig District Governor Massoud Jan. Dozens of locals then gathered around a large courtyard within the district center to sign up for voting in the upcoming national elections.

“Look at them,” said Gen. Muhaidin, brigade commander, 3rd Afghan National Army Brigade, 205 Corps, gesturing toward the crowd. “Now they know that the government is here and they have security. (The Afghans) have hope, that’s why they’re here.”

PHOTO CAPTION: Helmand Province Gov. Gulab Mangal raises the flag of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan over Khan Neshin castle in the Rig District Center July 8. The governor met with local leaders and citizens to discuss how the provincial government can provide services to the people of Khan Neshin, a former Taliban stronghold in the Helmand River valley. (USMC photo by Cpl. Aaron Rooks)

Army bars Stars & Stripes Reporter, Censorship an issue

Army bars Stars and Stripes reporter from covering 1st Cav unit in Mosul

Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Asserting that Stars and Stripes “refused to highlight” good news in Iraq that the U.S. military wanted to emphasize, Army officials have barred a Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division that is attempting to secure the violent city of Mosul.

Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division’s 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.

“Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news,” Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin’s embed request.

Bellard also alleged that Druzin used quotes out of context, “behaved unprofessionally” and persisted in asking Army officials for permission to use a computer to file a story during a communications-blackout period.

Additionally, Col. Gary Volesky, the 3rd Brigade’s commander, asserted that Druzin “would not answer questions about stories he was writing.”

Terry Leonard, editorial director of Stars and Stripes, said Druzin’s reporting in Mosul had been consistently accurate and fair and he denied all of the Army’s allegations. Leonard noted, for example, that reporters are not required to answer a commander’s questions about their plans for future stories.

He said the newspaper had spent more than three weeks appealing Druzin’s banishment to senior commanders in Iraq as well as public affairs officials at the Pentagon, but had been repeatedly rebuffed.

Instead, Army officials offered to allow a different Stripes reporter to embed with the 3rd Brigade, or in the alternative, to allow Druzin to embed with a different Army unit in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. Leonard rejected those offers on the grounds that the military has no right to try to deflect coverage away from Mosul or choose which Stripes reporters will be allowed to cover its operations.

“To deny Mr. Druzin an embed under the reasons stated by Maj. Bellard is a direct challenge to the editorial independence of this newspaper,” Leonard wrote in his appeal. “That independence is mandated by Congress. The denial of the embed constitutes an attempt at censorship and it is also an illegal prior restraint under federal law. … The military cannot tell us what stories to write or not write.”

Leonard also noted that, although Stars and Stripes receives some federal funding through the Defense Department to offset the extraordinary costs of distributing the newspaper to U.S. troops in war zones, the newspaper’s reporting is not subject to Pentagon authority.

The Army’s denial of Druzin’s embed request appears to violate the Pentagon’s established ground rules regarding embedded reporters, which state: “These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information.”

Among its specific complaints against Druzin, the Army alleged:

That Druzin used a quote from Volesky about improving the capabilities of the Iraqi police “out of context in an unrelated article weeks later.” Leonard said the quote was entirely relevant to the story and that Stars and Stripes, like any newspaper, reserves the right to use quotes and information in multiple stories that may appear after the interview occurred.

That Druzin overheard a private conversation between a chief warrant officer and another person and then quoted the chief warrant officer in a story. Leonard said the quote was actually obtained during an on-the-record conversation with the chief warrant officer; that the chief warrant officer checked with his superior to clear the conversation; and that Druzin took the extra step of verifying the quote with the chief warrant officer before it was published.

That Druzin attended a brigade memorial service for four U.S. soldiers killed in a Feb. 9 car bomb attack and then insisted on publishing the names of the dead soldiers before their families had been notified and their identities had been officially released by the Pentagon. In fact, Leonard said, Druzin had been invited by Bellard to attend the memorial service and the newspaper, following its normal policy, did not publish the names of the dead until they had been announced by the Pentagon.

Leonard said the newspaper would not tolerate the Army’s attempts to control it.

“Under the embed rules and the congressional mandate of editorial independence for this newspaper, it does not fall under the authority or competence of the command to decide if we do a story, what story we do, or what angle we take in writing the story,” Leonard wrote in his appeal.


© 2009 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.