‘For God & Country’: A sniper’s story

A 22-year-old Marine sniper talks about fighting, coming home from Iraq



• Sniper's story from the front line
Dec. 9: Marine Sergeant Matthew Orth went to Iraq armed with a sniper rifle and a video camera. His story in his own words.
Watch A Cut Of Documentary, Report

Marine Scout Snipers are some of the most elite fighters in the American military services.
"For God & Country: A Marine Sniper’s Story" tells the tale of Matt Orth, a 22-year-old war veteran whose job is to silently stalk the enemy in advance of the front lines to identify and eliminate key enemy personnel. Through raw photos and video, Matt shows in bold detail what it’s like to kill and how it feels to come home and be called an “assassin.”
Orth is now discharged from the Marines after a tour in Afghanistan and two tours in Iraq. "Doc Block" caught up with Orth via e-mail to find out what affected him the most on the front lines of war and how overwhelming it was to come home.

Doc Block: What attracted you to join the Marines?
Marine Sgt. Matt Orth, Scout Sniper with 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment: I was in the Marine Corps JROTC in high school so I guess you could say that I grew up in the Marine lifestyle.
Doc Block: Did you have any preconceptions about what life at war was going to be like? How did the reality of everything compare to those preconceptions?
Orth: The only thoughts I had prior to any deployment was that I knew I was going to get shot at. I knew I was going to lose friends and that I would see horrible things but, it still was shocking once I was there. I really thought I was mentally ready for what I was going to do and see but in reality, I wasn’t.
Doc Block: What did your family think when you joined?
Orth: My parents were great. Just like any other family they would rather me go to college than into the military but they knew that this was what I wanted to do and backed me 100 percent.
Doc Block: What were your other options besides the Marines?
Orth: Basically, like any other 18 year old I could have gone off to college, but at the time I knew I wasn’t ready to settle down and focus on school.
Doc Block: What were your first impressions of Iraq and its people when you arrived?
Orth: When I first interacted with the people I realized that they weren’t that much different than Americans.
Doc Block: Did you ever question your purpose in Iraq?
Orth: No, not really. I was sent there to do my job and that’s what I did - no questions asked.
Doc Block: How was the way you were received in Iraq different from Afghanistan?
Orth: More bombs and bullets.
Doc Block: What were you doing when you weren’t out on a mission? What was your typical day like in Iraq?
Orth: We would sleep during the day and be up at night because that’s when we would usually go out. I would wake up and go to dinner chow then come back read a book, listen to some music, clean my gear, play a card game or watch a video.
Doc Block: What are things you missed the most when you were away?
Orth: My friends and family of course but most of all the small things like driving to the beach, listening to the radio, special foods, or riding my motorcycle.
Doc Block: If you had to pick one, what is the one thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq?
Orth: That there were WMD and the people talk about them all the time.
Doc Block: What is the one thing that makes you angriest about news coverage of the conflict?
Orth: Most news networks will interview us during combat and completely change what we said just to have better ratings. That means the American public does not get the true story on what is taking place in Iraq.
Doc Block: What was it like to come home after combat? How had you changed? Could you go back to living the same life?
Orth: You will never be the same. You approach life differently, the way you think is different. You’ve seen and been through things that people can’t dream up in nightmares, but in the end your life and personal interactions somehow mean more than ever.
Doc Block: How were you received by family? Friends? The public?
Orth: With love and support by most people. Others would ask me questions about what we were doing and why we were over there, and I could see once we were done talking, that they understood a little bit better of why we were doing in Iraq.
Doc Block: Were you aware of the public’s generally negative attitude about Iraq while you were overseas?
Orth: Yes, we all knew that the American people thought negatively about the war but we didn’t care because the media is telling different stories about what is really going on, how could they know the truth unless they were over here fighting the fight?
Doc Block: What are your plans now that you are back? What was the first thing you did when you got home?
Orth: First thing I did when I got home was drink a beer. For the most part I’ve been working on my mother’s house to sell it because she became ill. Other than that I’m just trying to find a job until I can start college.
Doc Block: What are the images from Iraq that will stay with you for the rest of your life?
Orth: Mostly death and destruction like everyone else but also the happy kids that can now play in the streets safely, sitting down and eating lunch or dinner with an Iraqi family, but most of all, the friends and brothers I made.
Doc Block: Emotionally, how hard is it to adjust?
Orth: When I first got back, it didn’t seem too hard, but after a while you sometimes out of nowhere you start to cry or just feel totally alone like there is no one there for you. That’s the really hard part.
Doc Block: Have you experienced any form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Orth: Yes, I think everyone does. I came home the first time and thought any car on the road that got close to me was going to blow up. I couldn’t drive. I would get panic attacks.
Doc Block: If you could go back in time to the moment when you signed up for the Marines, would you do it again?
Orth: In a heartbeat.

Just A Reminder About PTSD:

Ilona Meagher, of "PTSD Combat: Winning The War Within" and Guests, of ePluribus Media will be interviewed on a Radio Program, "About Face" {Actually two, one taped last Sunday will Air on Tonight, Saturday, the other a Live Call-In Show on Sunday, out of Phoenix AZ, that is the work of the local 'Veterans For Peace' Chapter, and can be listened to Online at the links and times below.
The below was taken from a recent posting by Ilona, I also had a recent posting about these shows, you can find one here , this is actually an updated, with corrections, post of a previous one a few days before.

From Ilona:

This past Sunday, Robert Roerich, MD (who graces my upcoming book, Moving a Nation to Care, with a compelling Foreword if I may say so myself), Kay Shepherd of ePluribus Media , and myself taped what I hope you agree is a solid starting point for our push to get the issue of combat PTSD not only on everyone's lips, but in their hearts and into their hands -- not minds, because what we now need is action -- as well.

December 16, 2006

Now that all of the air date and time details have been confirmed, you are cordially invited to tune in this weekend to About Face with Dennis Stout -- a new radio program broadcast every Saturday on the Progressive Radio Network
Streaming here on Sat. Dec 16 at 3:00 pm PST/6:00 pm EST.
Or archived here sometime after broadcast.

December 17, 2006

In addition to Saturday's hourlong show, I have been invited back by the About Face crew -- Dennis Stout, John Henry, and Mark Fleming -- this time for a live call-in segment set to air the following morning, Sunday, Dec 17, on Air America - 1480AM KPHX" -- AAR's Phoenix affiliate
Streaming here on Sun. Dec 17 at 11:00 am MST (Phoenix time)/1:00 pm EST.
Want to call-in and talk about combat PTSD?
In-Studio : 602-258-8800 - Toll Free : 800-989-1480

What Is "About Face":

"About Face" is a program brought to you by the Phoenix Chapter of Veterans For Peace. ... The program "About Face" addresses the issues and concerns of our veterans returning home from the war and military. For example, we discuss issues such as the number of homeless veterans and programs that provide assistance, counseling, and training to help these heroes get another chance in life. We discuss the effects of PTSD and how sufferers of this disorder can get help.
About This Show:
We leave listeners with calls to support the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act (HR 5771) and the 'Lane Evans' bill, the Comprehensive Assistance for Veterans Exposed to Traumatic Stressors Act of 2005 (HR 1588), and my ePM collaboration work on the PTSD Timeline. You would think that with an hour we'd have plenty of time to cover everything, but boy did we only scratch the surface on this incredibly complex issue.

If in the Phoenix AZ area, Tune In on Sunday, if not in that area you can Stream it Live at above Link!
The Saturday radio program is a taped program and can be listened to at the Progressive Radio Station on your puter at the Link above!

TO THE CHOIR: If they vote for war, occupy 'em!

By Mike Ferner
National Board member with Veterans For Peace

After nearly four years of war I'd wager that a few million Americans have held a candle at a vigil, carried a sign at a rally, passed out a flyer, forwarded an email to friends, or gone to a demonstration in a distant city. If you, Dear Reader, are one of these stout souls, this letter is to you.

But first, may I ask a favor? For the rest of this letter please forget that at least once during these years of protest you, no doubt, mourned that "only the choir" participated. The choir -- people who actually do something for peace -- is precisely who I'm writing to.

No doubt, it's frustrating that, except for a few grand occasions, "only the choir" shows up. But consider this: of the millions of women in the U.S. at the time, relatively few became active suffragists with the staying power to eventually get votes for women. Of the millions of workers suffering from the Great Depression, relatively few answered the call to sit down in the auto factories to win recognition for unions. Of the millions of blacks bearing the weight of segregation, relatively few sat down at lunch counters.

In their day they were "the choir." When they were the only ones who showed up for vigils and rallies, they, no doubt, bemoaned that "only the choir" had come again. They came to action after action, moving things forward imperceptibly each time. But when conditions were right, they acted one more time. And then they made history.

Several indicators confirm that conditions are right again.

* The November elections clearly proved the public wants to end the war. That sentiment will surely grow in the months ahead.

* This spring, likely in March, Congress will vote whether to continue the war with another $160,000,000,000 "supplemental appropriation."

* This February, the peace movement's choir, of which you are one, will up the ante of protest. Voices for Creative Nonviolence, joined by Veterans For Peace, have initiated the "Occupation Project" to occupy the hometown offices of Representatives and Senators who have voted money for the war.

* If we miss this opportunity to greatly hasten peace, the war will still eventually end. "Eventually," however, will be measured in additional thousands of lives lost, even more thousands suffering horrific injuries, and the world becoming more dangerous.

* All this clearly adds up to a historic opportunity.

You have already done something for peace. Now will you consider taking a giant step that will mean so much more?

Last week I spoke in Marietta, Ohio to 35 people, and announced the Occupation Project. I asked who among them would consider occupying their local congressional offices. Without a moment's hesitation, six hands went up. You could hear the choir start to harmonize!

We talked about practical concerns: having to work, how much will it cost, what will the charge be? We talked about taking a vacation day and the modest fines involved for a misdemeanor -- all compared to the enormous suffering Iraqis and soldiers now endure in this war.

We could have talked about how much less frightening this is compared to the suffragists who were arrested, manhandled, and force-fed while they served long jail terms; how unionists were struck in the face by company goon squads; how civil rights activists tolerated untold abuses from screaming racists -- and still they carried on. They persevered. They stepped into the gap when they were needed most. They won justice and made history.

The Democratic Party now controls Congress because the grassroots peace movement turned public opinion against the Bush administration's war. These new elected officials must see that the time to end this war is now.

Many incumbents, including my own Congressperson, talk for peace -- even join the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus – but vote for war. They must now be told in no uncertain terms the jig is up. We will no longer tolerate platitudes for peace and votes for blood. This is where we draw the line. They either vote to end the occupation of Iraq or they will be occupied.

Below are roll calls for votes that Rep. Dennis Kucinich listed as the record of war funding. Check and see how you elected officials voted. A very few voted against each appropriation, and a call to their office will confirm if they will continue voting against the war. Several others have voted against one or two appropriations but in favor of the rest. These members, and those who consistently vote money for this war, are our targets.

We will go to their offices with a pledge for them to sign, confirming they will not vote for any more death and suffering in this war. If they do not sign, they will be occupied. A considerably more benign occupation than they are imposing, but uncomfortable for them nonetheless.

See how your Representatives and Senators have voted. Talk with other members of the choir where you live. Get ready to sing a glorious song to end this war!

Mike Ferner is a freelance writer from Ohio and author of "Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq." He was a Navy corpsman from 1969 to 1972.

###
See House Of Representative Voting Records: Iraq War Resolution & Iraq War Funding

Roll Calls for Key Congressional Votes on Iraq War:

House Joint Resolution 114 Authorizing Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Final House Vote October 10, 2002: 296-133
Final Senate Vote October 10, 2002: 77-23

House Joint Resolution 2
Final House Vote Feb. 13, 2003: 338-83
Final Senate Vote: Feb. 13, 2003: 76-20

HR 1559
Final House and Senate Vote April 12, 2003: (both voice votes)

HR 3289
Final House Vote October 31, 2003: 298-121
Final Senate Vote November 3, 2003: voice vote

HR 4613
Final House Vote July 22, 2004: 410-12
Final Senate Vote July 22, 2004: 96-0

HR 1268
Final House Vote May 5, 2005: 368-58
Final Senate Vote May 10, 2005: 100-0

HR 2863
Final House Vote December 19, 2005: 308-106
Final Senate Vote December 21, 2005: 93-0

HR 4939
Final House Vote June 13, 2006: 351-67
Final Senate Vote June 15, 2006: 98-1

HR 5631
Final House Vote September 26, 2006: 394-22
Final Senate Vote September 29, 2006: 100-0

End Iraq War Now - Anthony Arnove

Anthony Arnove, author of "Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal" spoke at the plenary session of the Campus Antiwar Network's Midwest Regional Conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago on April 22, 2006. He makes the case for immediate withdrawal, and points out the lies that led to war, and the lies that sustain the occupation of Iraq.




Hear audio of the conference and see photos HERE

Copyright notice: This video is © 2005 Charles Jenks; all rights reserved. Videos may be copied and shown for non-profit, educational and non-commercial use, under the following conditions: no editing of video (including extraction of sound or stills), no sale of the video (by itself or as part of a compilation), attributions shall be given to persons in the videos, sponsoring organizations and Traprock Peace Center; attribution shall be given to Charles Jenks as creator of the video with reference to his having copyright with all rights reserved, and notice shall be given to him via email of the use of the video. Uses that may involve editing or sale require prior permission. Contact: charlesjenks@traprockpeace.org

The Bloodbath We Created

The Bloodbath We Created
Gareth Porter
December 14, 2006
Gareth Porter is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam in Vietnam was published in June 2005. During the Vietnam War, Porter was a Ph.D. candidate specializing in Vietnamese history and politics who debunked the Nixon administration's "bloodbath" argument in a series of articles and monographs.

Of all the faults of the Iraq Study Group the most serious was its warning, highlighted by Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, that a “precipitate withdrawal” would cause a “bloodbath” in Iraq as well as a region-wide war. The cry of “bloodbath”—now given bipartisan status—will certainly be used to crush any attempt in Congress to advance a plan for a timetable for withdrawal.

In offering this bloodbath argument, the ISG has unconsciously mimicked the argument used by President Richard Nixon to justify continuing the U.S. war in Vietnam for another four years. Nixon, too, warned of a postwar “bloodbath” if there was a “precipitate withdrawal” of U.S. troops. If the Vietnam era bloodbath argument sought to distract the public’s attention from the very real bloodbath that the U.S. war was causing, the new bloodbath argument distracts attention from the relationship between the U.S. occupation and the sectarian bloodbath that is continuing to worsen with every passing month.

You would think that the political elite might be wary of an argument suggesting that the U.S. military presence in Iraq somehow helps restrain the Shiites and Sunnis from civil war—in light of the escalating sectarian killings in Baghdad since thousands of U.S. troops poured into Baghdad ostensibly to curb the sectarian war. Yet that is exactly what we are asked to believe by the ISG.

The bloodbath argument evades the central fact that the U.S. occupation has never been aimed at avoiding or reducing sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. On the contrary, the U.S. has used sectarian conflict for its own purposes. The main purpose of the U.S. occupation has been to claim victory over those who resisted it, which has meant primarily suppressing the Sunni armed resistance throughout the Sunni zone. The Bush administration had to have Iraqi allies against the Sunni resistance, and after Sunni security units showed in 2004 that they would not fight other Sunnis on behalf of the occupation, the administration began relying primarily on Shiites to assist its war against the Sunnis.

Thus the militant Shiite political parties and their military wing became the administration’s primary Iraqi allies. Unfortunately those were the very sectarian organizations that were motivated by revenge against Sunnis. As soon they had gained control of the state organs of violence through the January 2005 election, those organizations began to unleash retribution against the Sunni community in Baghdad—seizing Sunni mosques and killing Sunni political and religious leaders. The torture and killing of Sunni detainees by such Shiite paramilitary groups as the Badr brigade and the Wolf brigade were well documented by mid-2005.

The Bush administration was hardly unaware of the dangerous rise of the pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Baghdad who intended to carry out ethnic cleansing against Sunnis. Their closest Iraqi collaborator, the secular Shiite interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, was warning them in no uncertain terms. In July 2005 , Allawi warned publicly that Iraq was “practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak.”

For a period of months in late 2005 and early 2006, the administration fretted over the new threat of sectarian civil war. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad publicly resisted Shiite control over the interior and defense ministries and threatened to reconsider U.S. assistance if they were not put in non-sectarian hands. As reported by the Sunday Times of London December 10, Khalilzad even carried on secret negotiations with Sunni resistance leaders for two months on their offer to be integrated into the national army and to “clean up” the pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad with arms provided by the United States.

In the end, however, Bush pulled back from making a deal with the Sunnis. When a permanent government was finally negotiated under firm sectarian Shiite control in April 2006, the administration resumed its support for its Shiite allies in the official war against both the Sunni resistance and al-Qaida-related terrorists. The interests of the military command and the White House in claiming a success in “standing up” an Iraqi army and police force trumped any concern about sectarian civil war.

The ISG failed to consider the full implications of that policy. Contrary to the official administration line that involvement in sectarian violence is limited to a minority of “extremists” in the military and police, in fact virtually the entire structure of Shiite military and police units is either actively participating or complicit in terrorism against Sunnis. When the SCIRI and its allies took over the interior department in 2005, its Badr militia was given wide latitude to infiltrate thousands of its loyal militiamen into the national police.

Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militiamen dominate the police both in parts of Baghdad and the Shiite south. Both Badr and Mahdi army recruits have been implicated in sectarian killings. The Defense Department admitted in its August 2006 report to Congress that it has no system for screening police for membership in Shiite militias. Wayne White, who was Deputy Director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s Near Eastern Division and coordinated Iraqi Intelligence until his retirement in 2005, and an adviser to the ISG, says the Iraqi police force have such close ties with the Shiite militias that it is “probably beyond help.”

The U.S.-sponsored Iraqi army is scarcely less sectarian in nature. The ISG itself admits that there are “significant questions about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units—specifically whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda.” Reporter Tom Lasseter, who was imbedded in the all-Shiite first brigade in October 2005, was told by one sergeant that they would do to the Sunnis what Saddam did to Shiites: “Start with five people from each neighborhood and kill them in the streets and go from there.”

Nevertheless, the United States has already transferred 287,000 AK-47 rifles, 17,000 machine guns, 7,600 grenade launchers, and 1,800 high mobility wheeled vehicles to these forces, according to official Central Command figures. The transfer of weapons to the police accelerated this past year, despite the well-known involvement of police units in death squad activities. And the Defense Department plans to send yet another 50,000 rifles to the police and another 86,000 to the army—along with 3,000 more vehicles.

We have every reason to fear that these weapons will become the basis for a higher level of warfare by Shiites against Sunnis in the future. Despite the administration’s complaints that Iran is supporting the Shiite militias who are causing sectarian violence, the United States itself is the quartermaster of the forces of sectarian civil war. And the recommendations of the ISG would continue this role for the indefinite future.

Why, then, should the occupation be considered as representing a restraint on the sectarian civil war already underway? It has no realistic plan or strategy for protecting the victims of “sectarian cleansing” except for “pressure” on the Shiite prime minister, which Shiite leaders rightly regard as serving domestic U.S. political purposes. And the idea that thousands of U.S. trainers swarming into Iraq will somehow transform the existing sectarian anti-Sunni army into one that will effectively oppose sectarian violence is, of course, laughable.

The notion that years more of U.S. military occupation will help stanch the bloodletting between Shiites and Sunnis is a self-deception of monumental proportions. If the objective were really to end the bloodletting, the United States would actively seek a peace agreement with the Sunni resistance based on a rapid, phased withdrawal and stop supporting the Shiite war against them. That would give international diplomatic efforts a more serious chance to succeed.

The bloodbath argument foisted on the public by the ISG is really about the refusal of a large segment of the political elite to accept the fact that the United States has broken Iraq in a way that can no longer be fixed by U.S. power—and has lost a war it entered into with such arrogance. It is a statement of ideological belief by an elite still deep in denial.

Pandora's Box, Destroyed!

Not Enough Cemetery to Go Around
Posted: 11 Dec 2006 04:50 PM CST

The Abu Hanifa Mosque is a famous Sunni mosque in Adhamiya. After the invasion the mosque constructed a new cemetery originally for fighters in the war but it has since been expanded.

Now the cemetery takes all manners of victims of Iraq sectarian violence and it has open to Shi’as as well.

Although stories about Iraq accentuate sectarian violence and the possibility of a looming civil war, there are many accounts of Iraqi’s coming together in opposition to sectarianism. One story is about how the Abu Hanifa mosque helped survivors of the Kadhmiya bridge tragedy in 2005.

Unfortunately this new cemetery can not hold all of the martyrs and others dieing each day in Iraq, and they expect to build many more in the coming months. The caretaker of the Abu Hanifa cemetery says they dig an average of 4-5 graves each day, and this is just for one cemetery in a city of five million inhabitants.

As the Iraq study group returns dire statistics from the situation in Iraq, one wonders when the stories of mutual aid and collective support in Baghdad’s communities will begin to get more play in the media. Although a civil war now seems inevitable, perhaps a better understanding of the solidarity present within Baghdadis and Iraqis can provide another direction for Iraq’s future.

And the World will be feeling the Results for Years!

Jack Lessenberry reviews:

"Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq"

From Michigan Public Radio
Listen To Audio
Transcript:

Mike Ferner went to Iraq just before the U.S. invasion in 2003, and again a year afterwards. He wanted to write about who the Iraqi people were and what their lives were like.
Almost a year after the invasion, he went back and talked to some of the same people and saw how their lives and their nation had changed. Now, two years later, comes his book, "Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran for Peace Reports From Iraq".
I was skeptical about this book. I have to confess, I don’t really know Mike Ferner, though I have known about him for years. I am the ombudsman for the newspaper in Toledo, where he lives. I have thought of him in the past primarily as a political activist.
Ferner was a city councilman for years. He won a minor bit of fame when he ran for mayor in 1993. That year he became one of the first candidates ever to be elected by the exit polls and unelected by the actual votes themselves.
I knew he was against the war from the start. This summer, he was arrested and convicted for painting antiwar slogans on highway passes in Toledo, something that struck me at the time as silly.
I feared his book might be propaganda. Instead, Mike Ferner has done, or tried hard to do, classic journalism of a kind all too few of my fellow professional journalists have done.
He went to see ordinary people who lived far from the cameras and microphones. True, he does not speak Arabic, and yes, his mind was made up that this war was wrong, right from the start.
Yet he made an effort to do journalism that was far and away better than what most of the so-called “real journalists” did.
He doesn’t mince words. His message comes through, loud and clear. But he went to Iraq, the real, “red zone” Iraq, outside the artificial world of the American fortress called the Green Zone. What Ferner reports may have come to us somewhat distorted by the language barrier and his own perspective. But it is now clear that his reporting was more credible than the reports from journalists “embedded” with advancing U.S. forces during the invasion.
If you look back at what he was writing then, it stands up pretty well, compared to the breathless, optimistic bunk much of the mainstream media was reporting about how we were greeted as liberators. Frankly, I think Ferner is right about this war.
But even if I thought we should be there, I would agree with this passage from his book: “The very least the common folk of Iraq deserve is to have their stories heard. We need to hear them as much for our own sake as for theirs.
“For until we open our ears and hearts to their stories, we will never be able to answer the larger questions.” Questions, that is about this war, and questions about ourselves. Think about it.

Interview with Mike Ferner - 12/6/06

We got a sobering assessment of the situation in Iraq today trom the Iraq Study Group. But Mike Ferner, a peace activist and former city councilman in Toledo has seen Iraq in a way few Americans, even those in the military, have. He spent a month in that country before the invasion and two months there a year afterwards. His new book, Inside the Red Zone, is about those experiences. Michigan Radio’s Jack Lessenberry spoke with him.
Listen To Interview

Army Responds to NPR Investigative Report & Followup

Army Provides Context After Radio Story on Soldiers' Mental Health
Dec 08, 2006

A recent national radio program interviewed about a half dozen Soldiers at one Army post who say they are concerned about their military mental-health support and chain of command assistance after returning from Iraq. While the Army cannot discuss specific cases out of respect for Soldiers' personal privacy, we can state the Army is providing Soldiers with extensive and unprecedented care and assistance to veterans returning from battlefield operations. The radio interview, which does contain elements of truth, is not indicative of the incredible effort put forth to help Soldiers and certainly does not accurately represent the viewpoints of the vast majority of our Soldiers. The following transcript excerpts and Army clarification is provided for context and information about this critical issue facing our Army at war.

RADIO INTRODUCTION: "Tens of thousands of those Soldiers have symptoms of serious mental health problems, including depression, suicidal tendencies, substance abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. That is according to the military's own studies."

CONTEXT: According to the Defense Department's Contingency Tracking System more than 650,000 Soldiers have deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq. The Army knows from studies that 20 to 30 percent of Soldiers who have experienced combat will report symptoms such as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and irritability. Reporting symptoms, though, does not equate to having a psychiatric disorder. Often these symptoms are short term and improve over time - particularly with timely medical assistance. Army data, based on anonymous surveys following deployment, suggests 10 to 15 percent of veterans have symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. A small percent of the population is actually diagnosed with a psychological disorder.

RADIO STORY: "Soldiers who feel desperate and have tried to kill themselves have trouble getting the help they need. In fact, evidence suggests that officers punish Soldiers who need help and even kick them out of the Army."

CONTEXT: The radio story did not detail their evidence. Regardless, the Army has numerous venues to help Soldiers combat depression and suicidal thoughts -- to include consultation with medical providers, behavioral health providers and chaplains. Acknowledging there may be exceptions, the Army chain of command supports rehabilitation first and foremost. Soldiers are our greatest asset. Soldier separations usually are considered a last resort. PTSD as a result of combat is a type of casualty. We treat our casualties, and wherever possible, want them healthy and returned to duty. Also, Military One Source - a 24-hour-per-day Department of Defense funded help site - provides free confidential counseling for those who are worried about seeking counseling within the military system; it is available at www.militaryonesource.com.

RADIO: "One Soldier says when his officers found out he was having a breakdown and taking drugs, they started to haze him and they told him they were kicking him out of the Army."

CONTEXT: Seeking medical assistance from a mental health-care provider is definitely not career-ending. A key part of sustaining the all-volunteer force is caring for the all-volunteer force. The Army is very proactive in encouraging Soldiers to seek the help they need. Most Soldiers diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are treated and remain on active duty. Soldiers with drug or alcohol problems may seek assistance through the Army's Alcohol / Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPC), which assists Soldiers in rehabilitation. However, the Army will not tolerate illegal drug use. The Army is a disciplined organization and will take appropriate action against Soldiers who use illegal drugs and they will be considered for separation. If a Soldier voluntarily seeks ADAPC assistance, that fact alone cannot form the basis for disciplinary action or be used to deny the Soldier an honorable discharge. If a Soldier cannot abstain from illegal drug use, an action to separate the Soldier will be initiated.

RADIO: "Military studies show that when Soldiers get PTSD or other emotional disorders, their behavior often changes dramatically, they commonly do drugs, they slough off work, they misbehave in other ways."

CONTEXT: Post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse (including abuse of prescription drugs and alcohol) may exist in the same individual. Therefore, the Army behavioral health system offers treatment for both post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Awareness of this is part of the ongoing efforts to educate all Soldiers to address common psychological reactions to war and re-integration. One very helpful tool, for example, is the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research-Psychiatry and Neuroscience (WRAIR-PN) Battlemind Training website. The site includes video and briefing slides that may be viewed using the link www.Battlemind.org. This education also includes specific information about recognizing and treating alcohol abuse.

RADIO: "One Soldier says if you have a Soldier who has PTSD, you might not want to admit that's why you're discharging him because then the Army has to pay the Soldier special mental health benefits. It's expensive. Instead, you kick out the Soldier for breaking the rules and the Army pays fewer benefits, maybe none."

CONTEXT: This is unsubstantiated data from one individual. The decision as to whether a Soldier receives a medical discharge is based on many factors including: his/her diagnosis, level of impairment, response to therapy, and previous psychiatric history. The doctors who recommend whether a Soldier needs a medical discharge do not determine if a Soldier gets disability and what that level of disability is. That is done by a separate board, called a Physical Evaluation Board, where each case is looked at individually and the Soldier is given the opportunity to present evidence for the Board's consideration. Terminating a Soldier's service is a difficult decision, whether for physical disability or misconduct, and the Army takes both very seriously.

CONCLUSION: The Army is committed to ensuring all returning Soldiers receive the behavioral health care they need. An extensive array of mental health services has long been available and continues to get better. Since 9/11, the Army has increased and improved behavioral health services and PTSD counseling, especially at major Army installations. We anticipate a continued high demand for services and are committed to providing the necessary resources to respond. The Army has also conducted extensive research while monitoring the health of Soldiers. Partly as a result of this research, we have dramatically improved the way we screen Soldiers for behavioral health issues and deliver care. One great example is the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) conducted three to six months following a Soldier's return from deployment. The PDHRA Program is mandated by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and designed to identify and address health concerns, with specific emphasis on mental health, that have emerged over time since deployment. For more information about the program, please visit the PDHRA Site.


For more information, please contact Paul Boyce at (703) 697-2564.

Human Rights Day 12/10? What Does Human Rights Mean!

I post this and would like those that read the following to read it carefully. Keep in mind what we like to think of ourselves and what we call Democracy. Think about how we spread that ideal through the World, not only now but in the past as well, with our Government Policies and the ever expanding Corporate Structures, leading to the treatment of others in their own Countries of which they are born and as Patriotic about, and have cultures they embrace, as we say we are about this Country. Think about what we say, but in reality what we actually do.

In short, Think about how We Treat Others, after all we contributed to the below!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

For a further look at The Declaration of Human Rights use the links below, and any others one might find.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Youth for Human Rights International
A Whole Host Of Links For further Study

Now, some may need to go back and restudy the Articles for this coming question:

How many of these Articles have We broken, ignored, simply didn't care, etc. in these recent years, not only abroad { which brings about the growing hatreds of others towards Us} but we've allowed to be ignored here, right on our own soil?

One can expand this to almost any time in the existance of this Country, the things we know that are going on and the things we only suspect, with sometimes the proof of comes out way to late to go back and correct, and sometimes never coming out.
I don't lay blame, for the present, on this Disasterious Administration and the Previous couple of Congresses, Only.

As you note I highlighted the We, why because All of what goes on, negative or positive, is Done In Our Names, in Our Culture, as Our Example!

The Blame lies directly on Us!

For we hire those that represent us, not only within the Country but on the World Stage. We are the only ones that can correct the mistakes, misjudgements, corrupt policies, arrogance of the few, treatment of others, who we support and how in other Countries/Regions.

We must not only speak the words we must live by those standards, it's way to easy to see the hypocrisy if we don't.

We Must Take Back This Ideology Of Real Democracy or just give it up, if it doesn't finally collapse on it's own!

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect: He can think.