I'm troubled by the attack on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani

     Was it assassination for American drones to target and kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani? I hope not, but I'm very troubled and trying to learn and understand more. Was this combat, or crime, or somehow both?
     As a student of history, particularly World War II, I read with concern about the shoot-down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto by US Army Air Forces. Knowing the enemy's flight plans, American flyers conducted an extremely challenging mission ("Operation Vengeance") and shot down the Admiral's aircraft over the Solomon Islands on April 18, 1943.
     Writing about it, some historians called it an assassination, questioning the morality to intentional targeting even of combat leaders. Tellingly, Navy Secretary Knox himself had to give permission for an attack he considered morally questionable in targeting an individual, and in this case he knew it was both for vengeance and for tactical advantage. Rather than the legality of it, Knox questioned the insult to American morals He was swayed by the military considerations of eliminating the Japanese naval mastermind. Researching it, Knox concluded that, under the laws of war at that time, the mission to kill Yamamoto was a legal act of war. But not necessarily a moral act; Knox was forever troubled by the injury done to American values with his attack order.
     Avoiding targeting of opposing leaders isn't just a modern moral or legal question: even at Waterloo, Wellington stopped his artillery firing upon Napoleon.
     So the American drone targeting a specific Iranian general (a legal visitor to Iraq and a military officer from a nation with whom we are not at war) certainly has invited questions and even direct challenges, especially because our moral and legal foundations have evolved over the years since 1943, in part influenced by serious and appropriate self-questioning about the Yamamoto mission. For instance, assassination has been illegal per American law since 1981. It is clear that the morality of war changes with time. Let's hope that's for the better.
     For me, the most serious question comes about because of recent years and clear legal prohibitions against CIA and other intelligence assassinations.
    Generally-accepted morality and the laws of war do not prohibit the targeting of generals and admirals; in fact the killing of soldiers is nearly always permissible, unless they lay down their weapons in which case it is always illegal. In fact, the underlying concept in the laws of war is military necessity, meaning that even those things prohibited by the laws of war, such as the unintentional killing of civilians, can be argued as permissible if they are a matter of military necessity.
     It is the motivations of the decision makers that dictate the morality of the mission, for targeting military leaders solely for the purpose of revenge is in fact unethical and immoral – lethal revenge is best left to legal processes, if possible! If we accept what has been reported about General Qasem Soleimani's actions in Iraq, he was actively targeting American and allied interest and conducting terror campaigns, and thus himself became a legitimate target.
     The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution, seems to grant the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against terrorists with impunity. Thus, nobody should expect to be completely safe (physically, morally or legally) from an overhead MQ-9 Reaper armed with a Hellfire missile when actively plotting the deaths of Americans and our friends.
     While US officials have determined that Soleimani is a terrorist, he was also a ranking general in a sovereign government, so targeting him tempts war with Iran in a new way.
     I don't expect nations in the Middle East will see it our way, especially with administration speaking points focusing more on the general's death to prevent vague future operations against us, or as retaliation for suspected bad acts in the past...because those excuses sound more and more like an illegal revenge assassination.

The Atlantic Magazine Reports on Iraq Chemical Weapons

The New York Times recently uncovered a vast cover-up by DOD officials  Hundreds of troops were exposed to mustard gas, sarin and other agents, all while working under military assurances that none of Iraq's old chemical warfare munitions were a threat.

But threat they were! Atlantic Monthly did a thorough review of the New York Times investigation and the responses by DOD and VA. Click to read their report.

Military Hid Info About Old Iraqi Chemical Weapons – troops exposed

Hundreds of American service members were exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons between 2003 and recent months.

Several news outlets, including Fox, CNN, The New York Times and the Associated Press, today reported that the Pentagon had withheld information from troops, Congress and even senior military leadership. Pentagon officials briefed the media and offered initial details.

More than 600 U.S. service members told military medical staff that they believe they were exposed to chemical warfare agents in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, The New York Times reported Thursday. Pentagon officials said the department will now expand its outreach to veterans and establish a toll-free hotline for reporting potential exposures and seeking medical evaluation or care, the newspaper said.

Recently, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered an internal review of military records after the Times reported in October that U.S. troops encountered degraded chemical weapons from the 1980s that had been hidden or used in makeshift bombs. The initial newspaper report disclosed that 17 service members had been injured by sarin or sulfur mustard agent, and several more came forward after the story appeared, the Times said Thursday.

The Army's Public Health Command collects standardized medical-history surveys, known as post-deployment health assessments, which troops fill out as they complete combat tours, the newspaper reported. Those who responded "yes" to a question about exposure to such warfare agents — "Do you think you were exposed to any chemical, biological and radiological warfare agents during this deployment?" — were asked to provide a brief explanation.

The review ordered by Hagel showed that 629 people answered "yes" to that question and also filled in a block with information indicating chemical agent exposure, Col. Jerome Buller, a spokesman for the Army surgeon general, told the newspaper. Each person who answered the questionnaire would have received a medical consultation at the end of their combat tour, Buller said.

The Times reported that it was not clear why the military did not take further steps, such as including compiling the data as it accumulated over more than a decade, tracking veterans with related medical complaints, or circulating warnings about risks to soldiers and to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Operationally, questions immediately arise about why EOD personnel were not  briefed on these threats, and why medical personnel were not informed that chemical injuries were a continuing battlefield threat.

This is troubling news to all veterans, and we wish those affected by these chemical weapons the best of care and every possible assistance from DOD and the VA. It is troubling that both the Pentagon and the VA continue to explain to C-123 veterans that, by VA's unique redefinition of the word "exposure," none of us were exposed (in their view.)  

Hopefully the same unscientific (or "ludicrous," in the view of a health official in another federal agency) redefinition won't be used to block care for more current chemical injuries. VA must be prevented from redefining exposure to prevent exposure claims. Congress, and the IOM, must realize that VA provides wonderful medical care but also has shown itself unreliable, and untrustworthy, by preventing veterans' access to that care.

That VA redefinition, established by VA's own Post Deployment Health Section, is: Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability. No proof of bioavailability, means no concession that exposure occurred and the VA eagerly dumps the claim. 

Questions must arise about why VA and DOD together oppose designating toxic C-123 transports proved to be contaminated with Agent Orange as Agent Orange sites, questions certain to only be asked more loudly following this revelation and its proof that policies often trump veterans' health needs.

Congressional Report Attacks Growth in Veterans' Disability Claims

The following article by military affairs expert Tom Philpott has been misunderstood by veterans.

Philpott's reporting of the Congressional Budget Office report is accurate and the recommendations of the CBO are properly summarized by the  reporter. He doesn't create the CBO's misguided conclusions, Philpott, correctly, only tells us what they were. 

"There are liars. There are damned liars. And then there are statisticians." (Disraeli quoted by Mark Twain.)  

It is the CBO and its statisticians, not Philpott, which should be condemned for this attack on America's veterans, and Philpott thanked for alerting the public about the obvious sea-change. The whole tone of the CBO report is anti-veteran, buck-saving, budget retrenching and it is also wrong!

The first error which caught my attention was at the end, where Gulf War vets are accused of swelling the VA's roles in disproportionate numbers...and the CBO tone is that the vets are jumping on some sort of VA disability gravy train, our numbers swelling five-fold between 2000 and 2013. CBO's intentional deception is in that a huge number of these Gulf War vet claims are at zero-percentage disability...injuries which are minor and do not warrant compensation but earn the vet medical care for that issue. And so many claims are at the 10% or 20% level, I don't imaging the economic health of the Nation affected by payments of $130 or $238, respectively. The vast majority of disabled vets are rated 30% or less.

Also, for the first time during and following a major conflict, with the Gulf War VA was proactive in meeting its obligations, reaching out to better inform veterans of various programs and benefits, and was well-assisted in this by the veterans service organizations. The VSOs were determined to prevent any repeat of the difficulties faced by returning veterans, such as happened in Vietnam. 

Another large percentage of Gulf claims were submitted which the VA's infamous Compensation and Pension Service took years to adjudicate and only approved after 2000. Mine is one of them, submitted in 1994 and still being adjusted in 2014 as my injuries worsen.

The objective of CBO was to show Congress some shifty tricks recommended to stop the growth of "undeserved" veterans benefits, particularly compensation. CBOs laying the growth to inappropriate VA largesse or veterans' greed for "common medical conditions of aging and lifestyle" disgusts every veteran, particularly those it singles out who served in Vietnam. 

I look forward to Philpott's deeper investigation into this CBO trashing of American veterans and CBO's attempts to denigrate our sick and injured comrades. Meanwhile, the Washington Post tore into both the Washington Times and the CBO Report in this analysis by Josh Hines. 

CBO: Why VA claims exploded and ways to slow the trend

By Tom Philpott 

Special to Stars and Stripes

Published: August 28, 2014

America’s population of living veterans fell by almost five million, or 17 percent, from 2000 to 2013.
So why did the number of veterans drawing disability compensation climb by 55 percent over that period?  And why has yearly VA disability payments tripled since 2000 to reach $60 billion in 2014?

The Congressional Budget Office explains why in a new report, and the primary reason is not found among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That source of claims is significant but not yet near its peak.

A greater factor has been liberalized laws and policies on “service connected” ailments, particularly decisions to compensate Vietnam War veterans for common medical conditions of aging and lifestyle because of an “association” with possible exposure to herbicides used in that war.

For example, in 2000 only 38,000 veterans from all war eras were receiving disability compensation for diabetes.  By last year, 320,000 veterans from the Vietnam War alone drew diabetes-related compensation.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) expanded its list of diseases presumed caused by Agent Orange to ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and certain types of leukemia in 2010.  By June of last year, that decision had led to VA processing 280,000 claims for the newly presumptive ailments and to making $4.5 billion in retroactive disability payments.

Another factor of growth in VA claims has been a weak labor market, CBO says, which encourages out-of-work or underemployed veterans to apply for disability compensation.  Current law allows them to do so at any age and as often as they like.  Indeed, laws enacted in 2000 and 2008 required VA to strengthen the help given to veterans to apply for disability benefits and substantiate claims.  VA also increased outreach to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and eased PTSD diagnostic requirements.

All such efforts, CBO says, are aided by the Internet and its capability to relay information quickly, and by websites that offer information on benefits and programs and encourages veterans to submit claims online.

CBO prepared its report, Veterans’ Disability Compensation: Trends and Policy Options, at the request of the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine.

As with most CBO reports, it offers only “objective, impartial analysis” and options, not recommendations.  But the options for easing the river of VA compensation claims are, as expected, controversial.  Many will be unpopular with veterans and condemned by powerful veteran service organizations, which would seem to make adoption by the Congress or VA unlikely outside of a larger bipartisan package of federal entitlement reforms.

 For example, CBO floats three options to alter policies on identifying service-connected conditions and to conduct long-term monitoring of disability ratings.  One would impose a time limit on filing initial claims.  CBO notes that in 2012, roughly 43 percent of first-time recipients of disability pay had filed claims while 55 or older, even though most had left service by age 30.  Seven percent of new claimants that year were 75 or older.

“Many Vietnam veterans, all of whom are now over the age of 55, began to receive compensation recently for such common medical conditions as hearing loss (35,000 new cases in 2012) and tinnitus (40,000 new cases in 2012),” CBO points out.

It suggests that veterans could be required to file initial claims within a fixed period of time, for instance within five or 10 or 20 years of leaving active duty, depending on medical condition claimed, because some conditions would take longer than others to become apparent.

Young Vets Troubled – Suicides Top Those of AD Troops

Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY11:17 a.m. EST January 10, 2014

Whatever torment has driven troops to commit suicide in historically high numbers is following them as they leave the service, according to data released by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Young veterans just out of the service and receiving health care from the government committed suicide at nearly three times the rate of active-duty troops in recent years, according to data released Thursday by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA officials say the data show that severe personal issues driving self-destructive tendencies for those in uniform follow them when they leave the military. The figures were released through a USA TODAY public records request.

"The rates ... are honestly alarming. This group of young veterans appears to be in some trouble," says Janet Kemp, head of the department's suicide prevention program.

The Army has struggled with suicide among active-duty troops more than other service branches during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the risk persists after soldiers return to civilian life.

Veterans ages 18-24 enrolled in the VA's health program killed themselves at a rate of 46 per 100,000 in 2009 and nearly 80 per 100,000 in 2011, the latest year of data available, according to the figures.

Non-veterans of the same age had a suicide rate during 2009 and 2010, the most recent data available, of about 20 per 100,000, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Thirty-six young veterans receiving some form of VA health care committed suicide in 2009 and 65 died by their own hand two years later. Among those in the broader age group 18-29, the suicide numbers rose from 88 in 2009 to 152 in 2011.

The overall suicide rate for active-duty personnel in the Army hovered at 22 per 100,000 during 2009-11, according to military figures.

The number of soldier suicides peaked at 185 in 2012 and a record rate for the Army that year of 30 per 100,000. Numbers for 2013 are not yet available.

Kemp says a preliminary analysis shows that most of them were not receiving mental health therapy but had been treated for other health issues by the VA.

"They're young. They've just gotten out of the service," she says. "They're more concentrated on going home, getting jobs, for the most part. They're not coming in for mental health care."

VA epidemiologist Robert Bossarte says a similar pattern was found among veterans in the past.

"There were were several studies after Vietnam that showed increases in suicide and other forms of injury/mortality for about the first five years following return from service," Bossarte says. "Those rates (eventually) came down to be about the same as the rest of the population."

A positive sign in the new data, Kemp says, is that suicide rates for male veterans of all ages who are diagnosed and treated for mental health problems by the VA have fallen steadily from 2001-2011, in contrast to suicide patterns among non-veteran males.

The same is not true for female veterans, whose suicide rates have not improved and remain higher than women who are not veterans, according to the VA data.

Kemp says recent success in reaching veterans through social media offers hope that more young people can be brought into therapy.

Online chat connections with veterans through the VA's suicide prevention office (hotline number is 1-800-273-8255) have increased from several hundred in 2009 to nearly 55,000 last year, VA data show.

"If we can get them engaged in (mental health) services, we can make a huge difference, and that's encouraging," she says.