VFA in the Media

VFA on NPR: Jason Forrester on the Diane Rehm Show

Jason Forrester, VFA’s Director of Policy, joins guest host Frank Sesno on the Diane Rehm show for an examination of medical, mental health, and other needs of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the efforts to improve the delivery of services on the Diane Rehm show, National Public Radio, 11/11/08:

Group: PA vets pay high price

By Brad Rhen, Lebanon Daily News

A report released Thursday by a veterans advocacy group claims Pennsylvania National Guard members have borne a “disproportionate share of the burden” of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But a Pennsylvania National Guard official said the report contains nothing new.

The report, which was released by Veterans for America, includes a list of six prominent strains and challenges placed upon Pennsylvania National Guard members and their families by the heavy use of the Pennsylvania National Guard since Sept. 22, 2001.

Among them are: Guard members returning from deployments experiencing great difficulty readjusting to their civilian lives; post-traumatic stress disorder and other post-deployment readjustment issues; and some small businesses are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to retain the same position vacated by employees who are deployed with the National Guard.

The report states that the VFA will recommend specific proposals to close the gap between the pressing needs created by deployments and services available in a subsequent report.

Adrienne Willis, co-director of VFA’s National Guard program, said VFA has been working on the report since January, and interviewed dozens of veterans, guard members and guard officials.

“We had a lot of responses from the Pennsylvania National Guard because they have been used so heavily,” she said. “Really there is no state that better exemplifies the needs of the National Guard than Pennsylvania.”

Kevin Cramsey, a spokesman for the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs at Fort Indiantown Gap, said the report contained nothing guard officials did not already know.

“There’s really nothing new in this report,” he said. “The Pennsylvania National Guard has played an important role in the global war on terror since 9/11, and that’s a source a great pride.”

Cramsey pointed out that the Pennsylvania National Guard is the only national guard in the nation that has been selected to have a Stryker brigade. Because of that, officials have assumed for a while that it would be deployed as soon as it was ready.

“So the idea that we would have a lot of deployments is not a revelation,” he said. “We’re one of the largest guards in the entire nation, and we’re one of the most active. While we are deploying a lot, we always have a lot of soldiers and airmen at home, and we always have the state covered.”

According to its Web site, http://www.veteransforamerica.org, VFA is an advocacy and humanitarian organization whose primary mission is to ensure that the United States meets the needs of service members and veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the past, the organization was known as Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

Jason Forrester, the other co-director of VFA’s National Guard program, said guard officials were very helpful in putting the report together.

“They greeted us with an outstretched hand, and they were very interested in getting feedback on how things were working with the various programs that have been put in place,” he said.

Forrester said VFA is a bipartisan organization and has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race.

Willis said the report was released now with the hope that the candidates will discuss issues that face the National Guard during the run-up to the election.

“I do think that this is a challenge for the next president, whoever it is,” she said.

The report can be read at the Web site http://www.veteransforamerica.org.

Stop Payment

The Atlantic, October 27, 2008

By Brian Mockenhaupt

This summer, Congress surprised me with an unexpected but welcome gift. A House subcommittee on defense appropriations had approved $500 for each month that a service member was retained under stop-loss, the policy by which military personnel can be involuntarily retained on active duty. Since September 11, 2001, 180,000 troops have served beyond the end of their enlistment contracts. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force curtailed stop-loss in 2003, but the Army—which accounts for 130,000 of those affected—still uses the policy. I served an extra 14 months under stoploss, including a year in Iraq, my second tour there. The House valued that life interruption at $7000.

Now, though, my wallet feels a bit lighter. In late-round finagling over the $612-billion defense bill, senators amended the stop-loss provision, removing the clause that made payments retroactive.

Budgets are all about priorities, and there’s never enough money. It will cost about $72 million to apply the $500-per-month bonus policy to the 12,000 soldiers now serving under stop-loss, compared with the $600 million-or-so it would cost to also give that benefit to those whose stop-loss terms have already been served. It’s true that with two wars being fought, there may be better uses for that extra $500 million; if the money can be used by the military to keep a few soldiers safe, increase their chances of battlefield success, or bring them home sooner, surely that’s a good and necessary trade.

But wait. The Seattle Times recently reported on $8.5 billion in defense earmarks that made their way into last year’s defense bill—including $588 million for a submarine that neither the Navy nor the Bush administration wanted. This year’s bill has no doubt been stuffed with equal servings of the ridiculous.

It seems unlikely that the stop-loss provision was scaled back solely in deference to more pressing military needs. The measure was introduced by two Democrats—Senator Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, and Representative Betty Sutton, of Ohio—who both opposed the troop surge in Iraq. Though there is nothing in the bill’s language about the efficacy of stop-loss, the provision carries an implied criticism of war policy, and treads on the generals’ domain. This can make both sides of the aisle wary, especially during election season—the time for defending one’s patriotism. By endorsing the payments, the reasoning goes, one opposes stop-loss, which means one isn’t giving the military all the tools it needs to succeed, which in turn means one doesn’t support the troops, which means one doesn’t want to win the War on Terror.

That line of reasoning isn’t new. When Senator Jim Webb introduced a more robust GI Bill, many legislators, including Senator John McCain, opposed it, arguing that the added benefits would impair military readiness by encouraging people to leave the service. But if the military has a manpower problem, it needs to do a better job recruiting. Punishing those who have already served the country—many with multiple combat deployments—is a rather shabby solution. Fortunately, a sense of fairness prevailed and the new GI Bill passed. Not so with the stop-loss provision. “This is another manifestation of people not living up to the idea of supporting our troops,” Jason Forrester, director of policy for Veterans for America, told me. “If we treat our military callously, then we’re going to have a hard time retaining them and recruiting them to come in.”

The original proposal called for $1,500 for each month under stop-loss. Enough legislators balked that the $1,500 soon dropped to $500, which was approved by the House subcommittee. In the Senate, the payments met further resistance. “We thought it was a no-brainer,” a legislative aide who worked on the bill said. “Why would you not want to compensate a soldier who is being forced away from his home and family, and forced to risk his life?” Proponents considered a compromise of $200 per month for those whose stop-loss has already been served, but opted to stay at $500 and work on retroactivity next year. The bill requires that the Pentagon conduct a feasibility study for retroactive payments.

Congress can move with speed and generosity when it wants to, as evidenced by the ever-growing list of financial crisis handouts—$100 billion here, $100 billion there. The September 11 Victims Compensation Fund was quite generous as well. The fund distributed $7 billion to the families of the nearly 3,000 killed and 2,600 injured in the attacks—as a tradeoff for not suing the airlines—with awards averaging $2 million for the deceased and $400,000 for the injured. (By contrast, service members killed in action receive life insurance payouts, which the Department of Defense in 2005 boosted from $250,000 to a maximum of $400,000. And of course, this is paid for through premiums, not largesse.)

Stop-loss can make sense, boosting a unit’s cohesion and combat-effectiveness by ensuring that soldiers train, deploy, and fight together, instead of coming and going, onesy twosy, as they did in Vietnam. I understand the need for stop-loss and didn’t harbor resentment when I fell under its wheels—the situation on the ground changed, which required a speedy and sustained infusion of more troops. I accepted that, and still do. I also returned uninjured. Others didn’t. A close friend was killed during his third Iraq deployment, under stop-loss. While the services don’t track the number of stop-lossed personnel killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, a quick Google search shows there have been many. Sometimes, that’s a requirement of the job. Everyone signs the contract aware of the possibility. But stop-loss also manifests itself in the mundane—delayed college plans, postponed weddings, missed births. For those who did come home, acknowledgement of the inconvenience would have been a nice gesture.

Guard support: Critique of services for Guard members offers some good ideas

Anchorage Daily News, October 17, 2008

Alaska Army National Guard members who are deployed overseas , as well as their families, deserve better support than they’re getting, but Tuesday’s report from the Veterans for America went overboard with its criticism of the Guard.

The early version was thin on backup and included a seemingly gratuitous swipe at Gov. Sarah Palin’s leadership of the Guard. Many of the Alaska problems identified in the draft have their roots in national policy, beyond the control of any governor.

Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, wasn’t far off the mark when he called the early version a “political hatchet job.”

But the state and others concerned with improving services for Guard members can’t just dismiss the veterans’ group’s critique altogether. Its final report toned down the rhetoric and focused on how Guard members and their families struggle with the stresses of long deployments.

The critique noted that Guard members nationwide and in Alaska have trouble getting support services, such as medical care, that are routinely available to regular active duty military members who have served in a war zone.

And the report points out some particular difficulties faced by Guard members in Alaska. Many of them live in isolated rural villages and must make an expensive plane flight to reach a VA clinic.

These are not new observations. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in a Senate hearing last November, highlighted the lack of ready access to medical care for Bush soldiers. And Lt. Gen. Campbell points out Congress just passed a bill that directs the Veterans Administration to use the Indian Health Service to get medical care to rural service members.

But the Veterans for America report keeps the pressure on to improve conditions for citizen soldiers in Alaska and nationwide.

Veterans for America is a nonprofit group that advocates for service members and veterans.
“We’ve been trying for five years to get attention paid to the National Guard in this country,” said Adrienne Willis, co-director of the group’s National Guard program. “It’s a national problem. But the existence of the rural population and the realities of Alaska made it different from National Guard problems we’ve seen elsewhere.”

The report advocates increased mental health screening, both before and after deployments. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a similar proposal within the past week for blanket screening of all returning troops. Screening everyone will “help remove the stigma of raising your hand,” and saying you need help, a USA Today article quoted Mullen as saying.

Gen. Campbell says he’d like to see comprehensive mental health screening too but would need funding.
Campbell disagrees strongly though with the Veterans for America’s conclusion that services here are so inadequate that the U.S. shouldn’t deploy the Alaska National Guard until the situation is remedied.
That would be a pretty drastic step.

It is clear that the entire country is still learning about the effects of post-combat stress as America continues a prolonged engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Alaska is so remote and spread out, it is a challenging place to make sure our guard, and all military veterans, get the support they deserve when they return home.

Alaska’s National Guard and military veterans endure tremendous disruption in their lives and their families’ lives when they go overseas to protect our country. The least we can do is make sure they and their families are well-supported in coping with the burdens of their selfless service.
BOTTOM LINE: The Veterans for America report brings more attention to weaknesses in the support system for Alaska National Guard members.

Vets critical of Palin’s national guard leadership

By Candace Heckman, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 2, 2008

Thursday’s the night conservative America has been waiting for. The night where many hope Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be able to prove to detractors and doubters that she has the chops to be second-in-command of the Unites States.

Most of the criticism comes from what many perceive as a lack of foreign-policy or military experience that might preclude her potential leadership of a country at war.

In response, the John McCain campaign and supporting Republicans point to Palin’s role as Alaska’s executive and any governor’s role as commander in chief of the national guard.

The Alaska National Guard is no small potatoes. In the event of an international missile attack, the Alaska Army National Guard’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion is tasked to kick into gear, using sophisticated surveillance systems to track the missile and wait for the order to fire one of 11 interceptor missiles that have been buried there.

And although Palin plays no role in national defense activities (they involve the guard, but are under federal command), the Veterans for America, also known as the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, are now questioning Palin’s record in taking care of her guardsmen for state matters, too.
The Seattle P-I’s Jon Naito has this report:

A veterans advocacy group released its preliminary findings Wednesday on the state of the Alaska National Guard, a report that in parts was critical of Gov. Sarah Palin.

The report released by Veterans For America said that under Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, it found that “the post-deployment needs of Alaska National Guard members and their families remain largely unmet.”

The group spent a week in Alaska assessing the condition of the Guard there, and said it found deficiencies in basic services and needs for returning veterans and their families, including access to health care.

VFA’s report concluded that the state was not doing enough to ensure the proper transition of its Guard members after returning from deployments to Iraq.

The report centered on the post-deployment status of returning veterans, in particular the difficulty for rural Guard members in gaining access to medical services.

About one quarter of the state’s Guard members live in remote areas, and many must travel to urban centers to receive health care, the report said.

In addition, VFA said it found a substantial increase in military families using food banks in the Anchorage area; that families of deployed Guard members had difficulty getting or retaining access to public assistance; and that the state had not done enough to assess and provide post-deployment health care and treatment for returning veterans, including a lack of outreach to female veterans.
VFA said that in one Guard battalion it found a rise in suicide, domestic violence, divorce and other adjustment problems after returning from deployment, and that retention and recruitment had declined.
The report suggested that the state improve its reimbursement system for rural veterans who had to travel long distances for health care; make certain parts of its reintegration program mandatory for those returning from deployment; and provide adequate time at home between deployments.

The report was also critical of the Guard’s preparedness to respond to domestic emergencies, citing a Governor’s Operating Budget report that said the Alaska Guard had consistently earned poor marks in training capability. The report also said that the Guard had been plagued with equipment and personnel shortages.