More than 10 years, six-thousand+ body bags, and hundreds of thousands of physically and psychologically wounded veterans too late, George W. Bush may finally be feeling a twinge of something resembling regret over the deaths and injuries caused by the Iraq War–the war he created based on a lie—and the war in Afghanistan. Last week [February 2014], Bush emerged from his self-portrait-in-bathtub-painting, post-Presidential hibernation to announce that his foundation plans to help veterans who are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].

About 2.5 million U.S. service members served in the Bush-initiated Iraq and Afghanistan wars since 2001, according to the Department of Defense.  Nearly 7,000 U.S. military personnel were killed. More than 50,000 U.S. and coalition service members were wounded in more than a decade of war. More than 270,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are thought to suffer from PTSD. To date, the Veterans Affairs Department has awarded disability benefits to more than 150,000 PTSD patients.

In a speech delivered last week, Bush outlined his plans. According to the Dallas News, he noted that “the Bush Institute hopes to create a set of best practices that can be applied to business, non-profits and other groups that are working with veterans and their families…Bush is expected to focus on three areas: the civilian-military divide; the employment prospects for post-9/11 veterans; and the stigma surrounding post-traumatic stress.”

I think it needs to be said that among the “best practices” that ought to be deployed is the practice of not sending people into unnecessary wars, and that such a “best practice” would preclude the need to deal with hundreds of thousands of people experiencing the “stigma” of post-traumatic stress.

Later, in an interview on ABC News, Bush talked more about the new initiative. He didn’t actually apologize for the physical and emotional destruction his fake war created. I doubt that he’ll ever be big enough to do that. As a person born to privilege, propped up as a puppet of a politically cynical entourage, and never really held accountable for his behavior (including ducking out on his own, cushy military tour of duty), W is not prone to introspection or regret. But he did say that helping veterans was his “duty,” and he did seem to be pursuing a positive impulse—unlike much of what he did as President.  So, perhaps in the years since he left office, the boy president has finally matured enough to put some of his presidential swagger behind him, and get some perspective on the long-term effects of sending millions of soldiers into a cooked-up, bloody battle with no justification and no acceptable outcome—just years of extended suffering for its physically and emotionally scarred veterans and their families.

At least, I hope that’s what has happened. Unless this is all just convenient, empty, legacy-building baloney from a former President who never really understood–and wasn’t curious about–the world around him or the consequences of blindly following the dictates of Dick Cheney. Or maybe as he ages, Bush’s testosterone level is falling a bit…Or maybe what he really regrets is that his legacy is going to be that of an empty-headed dolt who did a shitload of harm. Or perhaps, as has been suggested to me, the Republican party is hoping to elevate Bush’s brother to presidential status and needs George to do something–anything–to clean up the family image he totaled.

As Bush talked about his plans, he choked up a bit, and a single tear coursed down his cheek in what he called a “slightly emotional” reaction. It didn’t make me like him, or respect him, or forgive him for all the damage he mindlessly and callously inflicted. It’s far too little, far too late. But it was a heckuva lot better than “Mission Accomplished.”

The post George W. Bush discovers—rather late in the game—empathy for soldiers he destroyed appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A Gallup poll indicates that America’s male veterans lean towards the Romney/Ryan ticket at a 58% to 34% margin. The reasons are uncertain, but previous Gallup polls suggest that a disproportionate number of males entering the service are conservative to begin with, and while in the military, men are socialized toward a conservative viewpoint. This is an interesting development, given that neither candidate has a military background, for the first time since World War II. Does the fact that veterans support Romney/Ryan mean that they can expect support in return, if the GOP presidential candidates are elected?

 Who’s advising Romney/Ryan on veterans’ issues?

The policies that Romney/Ryan would support in office do not seem to be shaping up well for veterans, if the advisers they’ve chosen so far are any indication. James Nicholson was G. W. Bush’s secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), at least until he left the position under a cloud. Now Nicholson and several of his former compatriots are advisers to the Romney/Ryan campaign. Nicholson was described by votevets.org as the VA’s equivalent of “heckuva job Brownie” (Michael Brown of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina) for his disastrous handling of the department. At the time, Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that Nicholson “left the VA worse off than he found it.” Scandals under his tenure included disgraceful treatment of veterans at Walter Reed Hospital and a huge loss of two million veterans’ private data through misplacement of electronic records. It brings up the question of what advice the Romney/Ryan campaign is hoping for from an “expert” of this caliber.

Veterans for Common Sense Executive Director Patrick Bellon has stated, “A Romney presidency would be a disaster for veterans, as evidenced by whom he’s chosen to advise him.” Bellon points out that this selection indicates that Romney has learned little to nothing from mistakes made by his predecessors. Nicholson encouraged cuts in staffing at a time when veterans were returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in record numbers. Paul Reickhoff , Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has also criticized Nicholson’s handling of the VA at the time of his resignation.

What’s in the Romney/Ryan  budget for vets?

When the GOP released their version of the budget, it was noted by Jon Stoltz of votevets.org that it did not even mention the word veteran. This budget proposal calls for freezes to many crucial programs, including spending for veterans, at a time when the numbers and severity of need are increasing. Already 45,000 veterans have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with wounds that require continuing attention from the VA. The budget endorsed by Congressman Ryan would spend 13% less on veterans needs than would the Obama Administration’s proposal. The savings from the GOP/Ryan spending cuts would not have lowered the deficit, but would have provided still more tax cuts for those in the upper income brackets.

In the past, Governor Romney has had some interesting thoughts on how to fix problems with the VA healthcare system. One suggestion that Romney made was a voucher system that would privatize the VA healthcare system. The VFW, one of the more conservative veterans groups, quickly responded that this idea “is a non-starter.” Governor Romney quickly backtracked when it became clear that very few veterans would support such a move.

Making it harder for vets to vote

A recent move by the GOP in Ohio that drew support from the Romney/Ryan campaign stands to damage the ability of that state’s veterans to vote. Early voting has long allowed the elderly and disabled veterans, as well as those without easy access to the polls to cast votes. The Ohio GOP has decided to do all it can to end early voting, a move which could impact up to 900,000 veterans in the state. The Romney/Ryan campaign points to an exception for servicemen overseas, but this would not help those who rely on early voting and are veterans rather than active duty. Early voting in Ohio accounted for a third of all ballots cast in the 2008 election, meaning the program is at least popular, and most likely crucial to many in the state.

 The Obama record on veterans

Veterans might ask if President Obama has done any better for them. Since his election, he has signed into law several tax credits to benefit America’s veterans. The Returning Heroes tax credit provide $5,600 for hiring unemployed veterans. The Wounded Warriors tax credit gives up to $9,600 for hiring a disabled veteran. There is also the proposed Veterans Job Corps ConservationAct, which would put up to 20,000 veterans back to work. The current administration has been working hard to add more healthcare fessional and mental health professionals to deal with the increasing workload of the VA. The Obama administration also claims credit for fighting to preserve benefits and strengthen educational benefits.

Although veterans may support the Romney/Ryan ticket, according to recent polls, it would appear that America’s former vets would do better with the Obama/Biden ticket. Recent developments indicate that the Romney campaign is willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto their edge with male veterans. A “birther” and Navy seal has been chosen to lead a campaign to “swift boat” President Obama for claiming any credit in the takedown of Osama Bin Laden. Time will tell if these blatant propaganda moves will be successful or not.

Mike Davis is a disabled veteran and member of Veterans For Peace.

The post Romney /Ryan and America’s veterans: Does support go both ways? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

My Southwest Airlines “A” boarding pass on flight #427 from Baltimore to Albany lost its advantage last week, as I was bumped to the back of the line for patriotic reasons. But I didn’t mind.

On this designated “Honor Flight,” about 60 military veterans, mostly in their 80s and 90s, were returning from a trip to Washington DC, where they visited the memorials that commemorate the wars they fought in. One of the privileges accorded Honor Flight veterans is to pre-board ahead of everyone else.

I’m cool with honoring these guys by promoting them to the front of the line:  They reminded me of my late father, who landed on Utah Beach on the third day of the invasion of Europe in 1944. Like others of his time, he told us almost nothing about his experiences. Former NBC newsman Tom Brokaw chronicled these veterans in his best seller, whose name, “The Greatest Generation,” has become the meme for describing World War II-era soldiers.

Seeing that contingent of veterans wearing their “Honor Flight” t-shirts sparked in me a wave of sentimentality and choked-up emotion that I didn’t realize I still had. My father perfectly embodied an apt description of these veterans that I happened to bookmark while reading—in airports and during flights—Ian McEwans’ decidedly non-military novel, Solar.

“Like many men of his generation, he did not speak about his experiences and relished the ordinariness of postwar life, its tranquil routines, its tidiness and rising material well-being, and above all its lack of danger—everything that was to appear stifling to those born in the first year of the peace.”

I imagined the Honor Flight veterans as young men, photographed during basic training in their crisp, Army-green uniforms, as my father was, before the reality of war overtook them. I wondered how many of them saw soldiers drown as they stepped off their landing craft, when crews stopped short of the landing zone and disgorged troops into too-deep water—one of the stories doled out by my mother many years later. And I,wondered if others had found themselves separated from their units, left to fend for themselves by shooting and eating animals that happened into their gunsights, as my father had been, in the cold, Luxembourg winter of the Battle of the Bulge. My father spoke of this incident only because we asked him about the mounted deer’s head that hung above the door in the den of the house he built for us in 1947.

Most of the Honor Flight veterans I saw probably didn’t experience the anti-Semitism heaped upon my father—but only spoken of obliquely by my mother. And most were probably younger during the war. My father volunteered for the Army at age 32, with a one-year-old baby at home–ostensibly, according to our family’s war lore–to protect his younger, less resilient brother from the harsh realities of Army life and battle. As it was with all of his war experiences, we learned of this act of fraternal heroism only many years later—and the news did not come from Dad.

So, I didn’t mind the few minutes’ extra wait to board Flight #427. And I didn’t feel quite so much of my customary discomfort with and cynicism about “patriotism” when the procession of Honor Flight vets—many in wheelchairs—received a round of applause from other travelers as they made their way to Gate A12. And if a trip to Washington, DC—all expenses paid by the Honor Flight non-profit group—gave them and their families a sense of closure and recognition, who am I to scoff?

I asked one veteran, who was sitting near me awaiting the call to board the plane, where he had served. “Korea,” he said. “And a few years ago, the Korean government gave some of us an all-expense-paid trip to Korea, as a way of thanking us for helping them fend off the North Koreans 60 years ago.”

That remark made me wonder about something. Will America give the same respect and charity to veterans of the Viet Nam War as they age into their 70s and 80s?  They were almost all draftees—young men sent into a meat grinder on an unwinnable mission that America turned against. No ticker-tape parades for them—mostly,  they came home feeling burned out, used, shamed, horrified, and unacknowledged.  Do veterans of an unpopular war deserve Honor Flights, too?

Logic and cynicism tell me that veterans of the Iraq wars will get more respect.  Iraq War I was viewed as a “good” war [against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait], and because the western coalition “won.”  Veterans of George W. Bush’s Iraq War II may rank lower on the  honor spectrum, because that conflict was more controversial [not to mention wholly unjustified] and poorly executed.

I’m afraid that our collective American consciousness feels better about drawing attention to veterans of “good”  and “successful” wars than about honoring the soldiers [or should I say victims] of wars waged under dubious circumstances. We’d prefer to forget about those.

So, I have to wonder: In fifty years, who—if anyone—will pay for Honor Flights or all-expense-paid visits back to the battlefield for veterans of the war in Afghanistan?

The post Honor Flight: Remembering, wondering appeared first on Occasional Planet.