IVAW targets Fort Hood
The Iraq Veterans Against the War have begun their campaign called “Operation Recovery” which has as it’s goal the prevention of the Army commanders to deploy “wounded” soldiers. One of my ninjas sent us this link from Aaron Hughes;
Through out this work it has been clear that Ft. Hood stands out as the worst abuser of service members right to heal. Operation Recovery has deployed to Ft. Hood to hold III Corps and Fort Hood Commander Lt. Gen. Campbell accountable for every Ft. Hood soldier that commits suicide, is sexual assaulted, or deployed with MST, PTSD, or TBI. Get the facts.
After requesting to meet with Gen. Campbell for over a month through certified mail and through email (to including the hundreds of emails members and supporters have sent to bring attention to our request) we were ignored. Wednesday in our attempt to not be ignored the Operation Recovery Team went to Third Corps office to meet with Gen. Campbell and deliver our demands to respect service members right to heal. We were ignored again by the General and forced to deliver our letter to an aid. Read more about the teams attempt to meet with Gen. Campbell here.
Here’s a video of their delivery of the letter to Fort Hood Headquarters. You’ll want to turn your speakers down;
Their “demands’;
Imagine that. A general refused to listen to IVAW’s demands. Aren’t generals charged with responding to every group of malcontents who wanders up to the main gate of their command? And he won’t speak with some random dorks off the street who arrive unannounced.
Someone please explain to me what would be the use of deploying soldiers to war who aren’t able to perform their mission? Ya know back during the civil war, that might make sense when soldiers were tossed into the meat grinder of combat, but now it’s senseless.
I guess soon the IVAW will be making demands of This Ain’t Hell, too. in another link, I’m the big meany who can’t give Victor Agosto a compassionate break;
Soldiers are incredibly loyal to each other. They’ll help each other and their families through the stress of multiple deployments. When soldiers refuse to deploy, they discover the other side of this community. All that brotherly love can turn to wrath. On the military blog This Ain’t Hell, combat veteran Jonn Lilyea called Agosto the “coward of the month.” Upon Agosto’s release, Lilyea suggested, “Now that Agosto is out of prison, he can go anywhere he wants. I urge him to go to a country that doesn’t embarrass him quite so much.” Other comments on This Ain’t Hell and other blogs can’t be reprinted here.
Well, at least they spelled my name right and mentioned the fact that I’m a combat veteran.
What happened to Agosto’s loyalty? He abandoned his workmates and someone else had to take his place on the line – the job has to be done, and it doesn’t matter who does it. I wonder if the guy they sent to take Agosto’s place was one of those soldiers who was wounded and needed time to recover?
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Usual Suspects
The gratuitious shaky cam action on that first video makes it unwatchable. Apparently they moonlight as Iraq Veterans Against the Graphic Arts.
John, You’re doing good work. What they fail to realize is that “brotherly love” HAS TO BE MUTUAL. Blue Falcons will always be looked down on, and for good reason, why should those that live a selfless life, be forced to bow to the selfish who have not earned such treatment?
As for Ft Hood. . . I can tell you that it’s not exactly a good place to be. 1st Cav and 13 COSCOM have EXTREME drug use problems. I’m not saying there aren’t good troops out there but its chalk full of shitbags, which kinda makes sense why these yahoos would target Ft Hood. I don’t see IVAW going to say Schofield, or Riley (also being a few hours from DFW which is a MAJOR transportation hub probably helped get these ass hats there in numbers). Such places would not abide these fools, or even let them on base. Hood, well its hard to NOT let them on base.
For no reason whatsoever the General could lock down Ft Hood (in theory) and SHOOT anyone that tries to enter. Moreover a General is NOT answerable to “the people” as the elected officials are. Why does that Fool Shehan, and these Jackasses think otherwise? Its a leap of logic I don’t really get.
Doc Bailey:
This is something that cannot be defined. Your attempts to do so, show that you are using “logic”, something “they” just cannot get a grip on. Quite possibly a result of their trading reality for stupid narcissism.
FO, I get what you’re saying, but at some point the sheerly ludicrous idiocy of their methods (and the fact that the message is perhaps a little dated, this isn’t 2006, and 2007, we’re not scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep up manning requirements). At some point you’d thinks SOMEONE might have said in their planning “hey, um, you know the General will NEVER see us right?”
Even if he had, what were they expecting to happen? An LTG saying “Gee you know what you’re absolutely right, I’m going to do a review of every troop deploying” They’d never have accepted it even if he had somehow acquiesced to their demands. Did they expect an LTG to go against the will of the CSA, SecArmy, SecDef, the US Congress, and the CinC and somehow stop all soldiers from Ft Hood deploying?
I’m sorry FO, but someone on some level should have know that this was entirely a futile gesture.
Doc Bailey,
In terms of logistics, Ft. Hood is closer to Austin, AKA San Francisco in the Heartland; and a better hub for anti-American activity.
I am trying to understand this post. If you agree that these soldiers shouldn’t be deployed with PTSD/TBI (ie, you ask “what would be the use” of deploying them)… wouldn’t it make sense to support the campaign against deploying said soldiers from Fort Hood? Aren’t you and the vets against the war on the same page when you say that soldiers with PTSD/TBI shouldn’t be deployed?
Because it is the IVAW who cannot be trusted given their past actions such as yelling insults to deploying troops on the day they are leaving. IVAW is just using this as a excuse and nothing more.
It seems IVAW’s ultimate goal is to suggest that everyone who has already gone has PTSD/TBI, which will effectively gut the NCO and officer corps. Had this petition come from the ARC, or VFW it might have actually been received and considered. But IVAW should know by now that NO ONE in a position of responsibility will take them seriously.
Interesting perspective. It seems the doctors giving the diagnosis would determine who has PTSD/TBI… and a rule barring soldiers with PTSD/TBI from deploying would do only that. I don’t think any organization can determine that “everyone who has already gone” has it. Numbers are pretty high though. I personally don’t think it makes sense to deploy them. When I was in Iraq, these soldiers had a hard time and a lot of my friends have struggled a lot because of multiple deployments after having PTSD. It’s a serious issue. If the NCO/officer corps is gutted or rebuilt… this could be very good for the military and doesn’t have to be viewed negatively–regardless of what particular group of veterans is bringing awareness to the issue. It’s reductive to avoid the conversation about stopping the deployment of troops with PTSD/TBI simply because a group “no one” takes seriously has drawn attention to it.
Except that what would be the threshold between someone being able to deploy or not. Also how will one deal with those that will actively hide it from their doctors.
Yet will all of the people that have deployed in the military the IVAW has very few members who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet they know more about what is going on there then the people who have been there.
Take Victor Agosto for example. Never left the FOB is the poster child championed by IVAW.
So this guy in my unit, while at first looked like he had some kind of plan, going the contentious objector route, opted instead to take the fools route. I had a talk or two with him, asking him what his plan of attack was going to be, do you have a back up plan and so on. To me a good leader will do his best to help even if that leader doesn’t agree with the choice being made by the soldier!! At some point his plan was to just disobey any and every order given to him!! During a process we all have to go through before we can get a green light to go, he was told by our First Sergeant to get some paperwork he needed to complete this process, his response was a firm ” NO!” I was shocked when I heard it the first time and by the third go around I was concerned my First Sergeants was going to go into a blind rage and choke this guy out.
He just kept refusing and finally Top walked away. This was bad, it happened in front of our whole unit many of which were brand new soldier. I walk down to have a word yet again with this guy, telling him that this is a fight he is not going to win at this stage, trust me I know, I told him!! I suggested he get his paperwork and fight it later.
After your site alerted me to the group IVAW and the campaign Operation Recovery, I looked into it. Yes, there are cases where veterans are not “combat” veterans… but this is to be expected. The soldiers suffering the severest cases of PTSD, the “combat” troops, are not going to be as engaged in the public sphere for their causes. As a “combat” veteran of Iraq, I understand that it is very difficult to follow your moral beliefs and values if it is not popular to do so. I have loyalty to my brothers and arms and though I am not a member of this group, I think that they raise some important points. In a volunteer army, the values of soldiers should be respected… if that means that if they do not believe a conflict is just, they should not be asked to fight. This would eliminate the political “problem” of the anti-war soldier and would better reflect American values, as well as the overall effectiveness and morale of soldiers. Whether that particular soldier left the FOB or not, doesn’t undermine his service or his right to an opinion. I listened to some of the Winter Soldier testimonies this morning from soldiers who served in actual combat and they raise some very important and common problems. People make decisions that are their own. Victor Agosto did what he did and that is all. No single soldier in the military OR military organizations can speak for the whole group, but if we cling to that perspective, we lose out on valuable insights. All soldiers have a responsibility to tell the truth. If a soldier is in denial about their condition, then the problem of stigma has not gone away. Meaningful posts need to be created for those who can’t deploy. If they have PTSD/TBI, etc from combat, we are doing them a disservice by deploying them again. They may want to go back with PTSD, but that is a part of the problem. It is hard to come home and readjust and process these experiences… but eventually, we all have to… Read more »
Also, as far as the threshold… accurate diagnosis is necessary. There are estimates from the VA that 95% of OIF/OEF have “some level” of PTSD. There needs to be greater distinction between what is the normal combat stress/exhaustion most, if not all, who have been in real combat experience… and what is a post-traumatic stress “disorder.” The disorder is very serious, and needs to be treated and wellness maintained. By kicking these soldiers out of the military completely though, I think we harm them and add to the stigma. There is a role for them in the service still, even if it is just peer-to-peer support, training, and etcetera. They’ve made a hell of a sacrifice that they will deal with physically and emotionally for life. We should give them the love, thanks, and healing they deserve.
So they had a hidden camera / wore t-shirts / heckle deploying Soldiers / and are not taken seriously?
You don’t say…
I have no doubt that I have PTSD. That doesn’t stop me from accomplishing my assigned tasks (and others that aren’t assigned to me in order to make up for others who don’t pull their weight) or functioning.