YORK, Pa. — Albert Snyder tears up, then turns angry as he recalls burying his Marine son while members of the anti-gay fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church picketed nearby.
"I can remember being presented the flag at the graveyard. I can remember saluting the coffin," Snyder says of the unusually balmy day in March 2006 when the family memorialized Matthew, a lance corporal killed in Iraq.
Yet, Snyder says, he can't separate such moments from the memory that his only son's funeral was picketed by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers with an inflammatory message that had nothing to do with Matthew.
Disconnecting the death of his 20-year-old son from his reaction to the protests "became very difficult."
Snyder, who sued Phelps for his distress, says he feels like he has been stabbed, and the wound will not heal.
The case has grown beyond a single clash between a devastated father and an attention-seeking, fire-and-brimstone group into a major test of speech rights and of safeguards for the sanctity of military funerals. The Supreme Court will hear the case Oct. 6, a crucial First Amendment challenge against the poignant backdrop of war deaths, family suffering and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve — as long as their sexual orientation remains secret.
Fourteen sets of outside organizations have entered the case. Those siding with Snyder include a majority of the states and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say they find Phelps' message horrific but that such speech is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Supporters of Snyder, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the states, emphasize the importance of protecting the privacy of grieving families and minimize the value of the Phelps' speech.
Phelps, who preaches that God hates gay people and protests what he views as the nation's tolerance of homosexuality — particularly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy — brushes off Snyder's anguish. In a telephone interview from his Topeka home, Phelps says the father's claim of emotional injuries is exaggerated.
"He ought to be very thankful to us that we ... warn people about the perils of sinful conduct that will destroy a nation," Phelps says.
Phelps knew nothing about Matthew Snyder, who was not gay, beyond that his funeral in Westminster, Md., offered the chance to draw attention to Phelps' message. Among the signs he brought were some that said, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Snyder sued Phelps and family members who were the primary demonstrators for the distress he suffered from their picketing and a Web video the Phelpses created about their protest. Snyder won a $5 million verdict in 2007. A federal appeals court overturned the judgment last year, saying the Phelps protest was protected by the First Amendment.
The dispute before the Supreme Court involves Maryland law, yet cases related to the Phelpses and other local laws are simmering across the country. The issue for the justices in Snyder v. Phelps is an individual's claim for damages from offensive messages, not the validity of government limits on protests near funerals.
"Free speech ideals usually are pretty abstract," observes University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells, who has written extensively on protesters' rights. "People say we agree with the First Amendment but when we get into areas that are offensive, like flag burning, people are much less tolerant."
Wells is among several scholars of First Amendment law, civil libertarians and news media representatives who have joined briefs stressing the need to protect odious speech.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"
"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."
'I still have so much anger'
Snyder, who has become a public face of families' grief for the thousands of troops killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has received e-mails from across the nation, letters from troops in the field, stuffed toys, a quilt and other tokens of sympathy.
"A man who dies for his country, for peace, should not have a father who has to fight to bury him in peace," Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman, says during an interview in his lawyer's office. "I still have so much anger that I have to cope with."
Snyder, 55 years old with a salt-and-pepper beard, clasps his hands tightly in front of him and speaks slowly, trying to keep emotions in check, as he explains why he decided to sue the Phelpses: "Every time I thought of Matt or passed his picture on the wall, I would think about what these people did to him."
It was more than the hateful signs near the funeral at the Catholic Church service in the family's hometown, he says. The video on the Westboro website that Snyder found days later also caused him pain. Entitled The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, it asserted Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."
Snyder said Phelps and other Westboro church members caused him depression and worsened his diabetes. Snyder prevailed in federal court in 2007 based on three Maryland state grounds: intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy.
The jury said Snyder was owed $2.9 million in damages to compensate him for the harm and $8 million in punitive damages, designed to punish Phelps. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $2.1 million, for a total of $5 million against the Phelpses.
In their appeal, the Phelpses said the case should have never gone to a jury because of the First Amendment principles at stake.
Part of anti-gay campaign
For Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro church in 1955 and has been its only pastor, military funerals have become a prime site for drawing news media attention to his opposition to homosexuals, the government and sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church.
The U.S. appeals court that heard the Snyder case noted that the Westboro Church focuses on "the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." Among the signs Phelps and his congregants display, according to lower court records, are "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "Don't Pray for the USA," and "America is Doomed."
He and his grown children check local newspapers for obituaries and, Phelps says, try to send congregants to protest almost every day of the year. "When homosexuality rears its ugly head, and you don't preach and stop it, your nation is doomed," says Phelps, 80.
Phelps has made headlines for decades, including for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student slain in 1998.
Westboro church has about 60 members, most of whom are Phelps' relatives. Two grown daughters and four of Phelps' grandchildren joined him at the Snyder funeral.
Phelps' lawyer is one of his 13 children, Margie Phelps, who says the congregation was "engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest." She says church members "act out of a love for God, the Bible, and their fellow citizens."
Margie Phelps argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the First Amendment protects their protests, as long as they follow local laws about how close they can get to a church.
The appeals court agreed, saying the case should never have gone to the jury.
The trial judge had declared that Snyder was not a "public figure," undercutting the First Amendment protection the Phelpses asserted. The appeals court, however, said the question was not the private or public status of Snyder, but rather the "type" of speech at issue.
"As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens."
Quoting from an earlier ruling, the court added, "the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
Speech advocates urging the high court to uphold the 4th Circuit ruling say natural public sympathy for military families and the Phelpses' shocking statements should not cloud the First Amendment stakes.
Joshua Wheeler, representing the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Freedom of Expression in Charlottesville, Va., says, "We do not challenge the suffering that Mr. Snyder has had to endure. We strongly disagree with the Phelpses' message and the manner in which they expressed it. But if the court sides with Mr. Snyder, the consequences for freedom of expression would be significantly chilling."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 21 news media groups, adds, "This case tests the mettle of even the most ardent free speech advocates because the underlying speech is so repugnant."
For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.
Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."
He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."
Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.
Summers says because Matthew Snyder was not gay and not engaged in public debate, it was likely the Phelpses' signs and Web video were intended to hurt a particular servicemember and interfere with the family's grief.
Snyder recalls that Matthew decided to enlist in the Marines shortly after the U.S. had invaded Iraq in 2003. He had just finished high school and was only 17, but Snyder says he did not want to stand in his son's way. He had known that military service was a goal of Matthew, the middle of his three children.
"People say, 'If you had to do it all over again, would you do it all over again?' " Snyder says. "Yeah, I probably would because that's what his dream was."
Reposted from USAToday
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Troops: Skipping Christian concert got us punished
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up.
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.
"If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said.
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps.
"My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts."
Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.
"Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.
The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward.
"Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.
Smith said he and the other soldiers were told not to use their cellphones or personal computers and ordered to clean up the barracks.
About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said.
Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."
While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said.
"But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.
From USAToday
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.
"If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said.
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps.
"My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts."
Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.
"Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.
The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward.
"Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.
Smith said he and the other soldiers were told not to use their cellphones or personal computers and ordered to clean up the barracks.
About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said.
Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."
While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said.
"But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.
From USAToday
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Military sees it's time for a change in camouflage
Soon, when soldiers stalk the enemy in Afghanistan, they may be harder to see.
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country's mountainous terrain.
"MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan," says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army's Program Executive Office Soldier.
The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.
The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.
The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.
One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.
The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, "so at night you'll blend into the background a little bit" when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.
In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.
The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.
Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform "stands out like a sore thumb" in Afghanistan.
"It doesn't blend into anything," 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.
The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.
Previous patterns included the six-color "chocolate chip" desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.
Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.
The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.
The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.
"Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern," Sloane says. "We're hoping they will, but we don't know if the technology is there yet."
Reposted from USAToday.com
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country's mountainous terrain.
"MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan," says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army's Program Executive Office Soldier.
The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.
The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.
The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.
One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.
The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, "so at night you'll blend into the background a little bit" when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.
In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.
The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.
Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform "stands out like a sore thumb" in Afghanistan.
"It doesn't blend into anything," 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.
The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.
Previous patterns included the six-color "chocolate chip" desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.
Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.
The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.
The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.
"Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern," Sloane says. "We're hoping they will, but we don't know if the technology is there yet."
Reposted from USAToday.com
Friday, July 16, 2010
Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June 2010 making it the worst month on record for Army suicides...
Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June making it the worst month on record for Army suicides, the service said Thursday. There were 32 confirmed or suspected suicides among soldiers in June, including 21 among active-duty troops and 11 among National Guard or Reserve forces, according to Army statistics. Seven soldiers killed themselves while in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan in June, according to the statistics. Of the total suicides, 22 soldiers had been in combat, including 10 who had deployed two to four times.
"The hypothesis is the same that many have heard me say before: continued stress on the force, said Army Col. Christopher Philbrick, director of the Army Suicide Prevention Task Force. He pointed out that the Army has been fighting for nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last year was the Army's worst for suicides with 244 confirmed or suspected cases.
The increase was a setback for the service, which has been pushing troops to seek counseling. Through May of this year, the Army had seen a decline in suicides among active-duty soldiers this year compared with the same period in 2009.
Philbrick expressed frustration over the June deaths. "Because we believe that the programs, policies, procedures ... are having a positive impact across the entire force. The help is there."
A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time.
"I would expect it to be years," said David Rudd, dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Science at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The mounting stress on an Army facing renewed deployments and combat in Afghanistan is also a factor, Rudd said. "That's not a challenge they (Army leaders) control. It's a challenge that the president and Congress controls," he said.
The Army also unveiled on Thursday a training video designed to combat suicides. It contains testimonials by soldiers who struggled with self-destructive impulses before seeking help. It is titled Shoulder to Shoulder: I Will Never Quit on Life.
Philbrick said this was an improved video that he hoped would reach troubled soldiers. The previous video did not resonate with average soldiers, he said. During a showing in Baghdad, soldiers laughed at it, Philbrick said. "In grunt language, it sucked," he said.
The Army's current suicide rate is about 22 deaths per 100,000, which is above a civilian rate that has been adjusted to match the demographics of the Army. That rate is 18-per-100,000. Only the Marine Corps has a higher suicide rate, at 24-per-100,000. Although Marine Corps suicides had been tracking similarly to last year's record pace, the service reported only one suicide in June.
Just among Guard and Reserve soldiers, suicides have occurred at a higher rate this year than last year, according to Army figures. There have been 65 confirmed or suspected cases this year, compared with 42 for the same period last year.
Reprinted from USAToday
"The hypothesis is the same that many have heard me say before: continued stress on the force, said Army Col. Christopher Philbrick, director of the Army Suicide Prevention Task Force. He pointed out that the Army has been fighting for nine years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last year was the Army's worst for suicides with 244 confirmed or suspected cases.
The increase was a setback for the service, which has been pushing troops to seek counseling. Through May of this year, the Army had seen a decline in suicides among active-duty soldiers this year compared with the same period in 2009.
Philbrick expressed frustration over the June deaths. "Because we believe that the programs, policies, procedures ... are having a positive impact across the entire force. The help is there."
A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time.
"I would expect it to be years," said David Rudd, dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Science at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The mounting stress on an Army facing renewed deployments and combat in Afghanistan is also a factor, Rudd said. "That's not a challenge they (Army leaders) control. It's a challenge that the president and Congress controls," he said.
The Army also unveiled on Thursday a training video designed to combat suicides. It contains testimonials by soldiers who struggled with self-destructive impulses before seeking help. It is titled Shoulder to Shoulder: I Will Never Quit on Life.
Philbrick said this was an improved video that he hoped would reach troubled soldiers. The previous video did not resonate with average soldiers, he said. During a showing in Baghdad, soldiers laughed at it, Philbrick said. "In grunt language, it sucked," he said.
The Army's current suicide rate is about 22 deaths per 100,000, which is above a civilian rate that has been adjusted to match the demographics of the Army. That rate is 18-per-100,000. Only the Marine Corps has a higher suicide rate, at 24-per-100,000. Although Marine Corps suicides had been tracking similarly to last year's record pace, the service reported only one suicide in June.
Just among Guard and Reserve soldiers, suicides have occurred at a higher rate this year than last year, according to Army figures. There have been 65 confirmed or suspected cases this year, compared with 42 for the same period last year.
Reprinted from USAToday
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What happens when you receive your deployment orders...
The sequence of events on September 11, 2001 changed America forever. On this day, The United States of America lost its innocence. The land of the free was no longer as free as it once was. Open and free travel no longer seemed as open and free following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Subsequently, America soon found itself at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of service members needed to adequately fight this war was tremendous. The number of service members on active duty was not enough to engage in effective combat. As such, the burden to pick up the slack fell upon the Reserve and National Guard forces of our military. Not in recent memory has there been a greater number of service members deployed conus or oconus. From a military development standpoint, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked the number of deployments to grow substantially. Since September 11, 2001, over 1.7 million service members have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Operation Enduring Freedom’s military focus is on securing the nation of Afghanistan, while as its name suggest, Operation Iraqi Freedom is concerned with securing the nation of Iraq. In addition to the service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of service members were deployed to Kuwait and Qatar in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, tens of thousands service members were deployed in support of contingency operations around the world.
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
So what happens when you receive your "orders" to go? Generally speaking your Unit, if you are deploying as a unit, will receive unit orders informing the Command that their unit will be deploying. If on the other hand you are an individual deployer as I was, you could receive your initial order via a phone call followed by orders requesting that you report for active duty. The amount of notice given to a service member ranges anywhere from several months in advance to only several days prior to the date ordered to active duty. I received my orders only three weeks before my scheduled day to report for duty.
There have been millions of Americans deployed to war zones around the world since this great country was founded over 230 years ago, however, recently it appears that many soldiers are deploying in greater frequency then ever before. In addition, some of those deployed are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th deployment. In many cases, the deployment is involuntary and not knowing all of the information that will make the deployment less stressful creates a tremendous burden not only for the deploying service member but the family of that service member as well.
Deployment is much like a roller coaster ride at an amusement park. You first have the uncertainty of the entire event much like what you feel as you enter the gate to a roller coaster that you have never ridden before. You are unsure if you will make it. You may even attempt to get out of it at the very last minute. The roller coaster makes its climb and just as you begin the process of family planning and the actual deployment, you become anxious and nervous. After you’ve made it to the top of the roller coaster, you brace yourself for your quick decent, and at this point you realize there is no turning back. This is a similar feeling to what you may experience upon reaching your mobilization site but you brace yourself anyway and prepare for the many highs and lows this ride will offer.
Over the next several post, I will attempt to share some insights for service members and their families as to of what to expect during the time of deployment and the best way to minimize many difficulties sure to occur...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sand drives Army to ditch Velcro on pants
WASHINGTON — The Army is ripping space-age Velcro from its uniforms and replacing it with the humble button, which turns out to be tailor-made for the rigors of Afghanistan.
Hook-and-pile tape — the generic term for Velcro— strains to keep jam-packed cargo pants pockets closed. And when the Taliban attacks, the last thing soldiers need to worry about is spilling their gear.
MILITARY: Fails on brain-test follow-ups
DEATH TOLL: A statistical, personal look at U.S. lives lost
Soldiers told superiors that Velcro didn't suit their needs, and the Army began testing alternatives last year, said Debi Dawson, an Army spokeswoman. In August, the Army will begin issuing new pants to soldiers heading to Afghanistan.
"When concerns surfaced in surveys that the hook-and-pile tape was not holding under the weight of full pocket loads, the Army evaluated several solutions," Dawson said. Velcro has been part of the latest Army combat uniform since it was introduced in 2004.
Dirt and rocks also clog the pile portion of the fastener. That requires soldiers to clean it regularly. An Army website offersthis helpful hint: a soldier's small weapons cleaning brush has been "working very well" in removing dirt and sand.
"This is the latest proof that dust and debris are the biggest enemy for the U.S. military," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense contractors. "Taliban attacks come and go, but dust is constant in Afghanistan. Dust will impede the function of anything."
Sgt. Kenny Hatten cut to the heart of the matter in this posting on an Army website, urging the military to go back to the future:
"Get rid of the pocket flap Velcro and give us back our buttons," Hatten wrote. "Buttons are silent, easy to replace in the field, work just fine in the mud, do not clog up with dirt and do not fray and disintegrate with repeated laundering."
Somebody, apparently, was listening.
Snaps and buttons were identified as possible fixes for failing Velcro. The Army surveyed 2,700 soldiers who tested prototypes, and 60% said they preferred buttons and 29% liked snaps. Just 11% wanted to keep Velcro, according to the Army. In the end, the Army decided to substitute three buttons for Velcro on the cargo pockets of its pants.
It's cheaper, too. The Army will save 96 cents per uniform when it swaps buttons for Velcro, Dawson said.
The new-and-improved uniforms will still have plenty of Velcro, the sticky fabric popularized during spaceflights. (Astronauts used it to keep pens and other items from floating in the weightless environment.) Velcro remains on the cuffs of sleeves. It's also used for nameplates and patches.
Hatten's ideal uniform might save the Army a few more pennies.
"I don't mind the insignia Velcro on the sleeve pockets, but why would I need Velcro for my name tape and U.S. Army tapes?" he asked. "Am I going to change my name and join a different army? Why not let us sew these items on the uniform, along with the patrol cap? That's cheaper, more durable and reduces the possibility of having your uniform items stolen or tampered with."
The Army, Dawson said, hears soldiers like Hatten. It's aware of continuing complaints about Velcro and will take them into account when redesigning uniforms in the future.
USAToday
Hook-and-pile tape — the generic term for Velcro— strains to keep jam-packed cargo pants pockets closed. And when the Taliban attacks, the last thing soldiers need to worry about is spilling their gear.
MILITARY: Fails on brain-test follow-ups
DEATH TOLL: A statistical, personal look at U.S. lives lost
Soldiers told superiors that Velcro didn't suit their needs, and the Army began testing alternatives last year, said Debi Dawson, an Army spokeswoman. In August, the Army will begin issuing new pants to soldiers heading to Afghanistan.
"When concerns surfaced in surveys that the hook-and-pile tape was not holding under the weight of full pocket loads, the Army evaluated several solutions," Dawson said. Velcro has been part of the latest Army combat uniform since it was introduced in 2004.
Dirt and rocks also clog the pile portion of the fastener. That requires soldiers to clean it regularly. An Army website offersthis helpful hint: a soldier's small weapons cleaning brush has been "working very well" in removing dirt and sand.
"This is the latest proof that dust and debris are the biggest enemy for the U.S. military," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute and a consultant to defense contractors. "Taliban attacks come and go, but dust is constant in Afghanistan. Dust will impede the function of anything."
Sgt. Kenny Hatten cut to the heart of the matter in this posting on an Army website, urging the military to go back to the future:
"Get rid of the pocket flap Velcro and give us back our buttons," Hatten wrote. "Buttons are silent, easy to replace in the field, work just fine in the mud, do not clog up with dirt and do not fray and disintegrate with repeated laundering."
Somebody, apparently, was listening.
Snaps and buttons were identified as possible fixes for failing Velcro. The Army surveyed 2,700 soldiers who tested prototypes, and 60% said they preferred buttons and 29% liked snaps. Just 11% wanted to keep Velcro, according to the Army. In the end, the Army decided to substitute three buttons for Velcro on the cargo pockets of its pants.
It's cheaper, too. The Army will save 96 cents per uniform when it swaps buttons for Velcro, Dawson said.
The new-and-improved uniforms will still have plenty of Velcro, the sticky fabric popularized during spaceflights. (Astronauts used it to keep pens and other items from floating in the weightless environment.) Velcro remains on the cuffs of sleeves. It's also used for nameplates and patches.
Hatten's ideal uniform might save the Army a few more pennies.
"I don't mind the insignia Velcro on the sleeve pockets, but why would I need Velcro for my name tape and U.S. Army tapes?" he asked. "Am I going to change my name and join a different army? Why not let us sew these items on the uniform, along with the patrol cap? That's cheaper, more durable and reduces the possibility of having your uniform items stolen or tampered with."
The Army, Dawson said, hears soldiers like Hatten. It's aware of continuing complaints about Velcro and will take them into account when redesigning uniforms in the future.
USAToday
Monday, June 14, 2010
Military fails on brain-test follow-ups
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has failed to comply with a congressional directive to give all troops tests before and after they serve in combat to measure their thinking abilities and uncover possible brain injuries, military records show.
More than 562,000 tests of troops taken before they deployed have not been readministered on their return by military health officials, the records show. That means the Pentagon could be missing thousands of cases of brain injury, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who helped write the 2008 order.
"This is a total failure," says Pascrell, co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. "We're failing to find TBI (traumatic brain injury) and post-traumatic stress disorder in an era when the military is trying to find and assist folks who need it."
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, and other Army officials say the test is flawed and no better than a "coin flip."
The test, called the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), produces too many false positive results, said Lt. Col. Michael Russell, head of the Army's ANAM program.
The test "was promised ... as a sort of 'pregnancy test' for (mild) TBI. It has failed to deliver," says Russell, adding that false results could be triggered by medication, such as Benadryl.
BRAIN DAMAGE: Two wars produce unique and puzzling injuries
MILITARY: Mental health stays rising
FAITH: Ministries pave a spiritual path to help veterans with PTSD
This misrepresents the test, which is designed only to alert doctors that a soldier's thinking process has declined and further evaluation is necessary, says Tresa Roebuck-Spencer, a neuropsychologist with the University of Oklahoma, which develops and distributes the testing program for the Army. She says research shows that false positives drop significantly when the post-deployment test is compared with the original exam.
In that role, this kind of test would be a useful tool for screening all returning troops as Congress intended, say two military neurologists, Air Force Col. Michael Jaffee, director of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and Cmdr. Jack Tsao, director of TBI programs for the Navy and Marines.
"Anything that would help us to better diagnose ... servicemembers who may need further care or follow-up is welcome," Tsao says.
ANAM is a roughly 20-minute computerized test that scores areas such as reaction time, learning speed, short-term memory and mathematical processing. It also gauges a servicemember's mood, fatigue and history of any head injury.
Congress passed the test order in January 2008. Ward Casscells, then the military's top medical officer, ordered in May 2008 that the ANAM test be given pre-deployment while military experts studied it and other tests for both pre- and post-deployment use. That study is not expected to be completed until 2013.
In November 2008, Schoomaker barred post-deployment screening with ANAM.
About 575,000 pre-deployment tests have been gathered at a cost of about $30 each. Only 12,000 to 13,000 tests have been used for follow-up comparisons, most for a study at Fort Campbell, Ky.
The military relies largely on self-reporting symptoms in diagnosing mild TBI suffered in combat. About 5% to 15% suffer persistent problems.
Reposted from USAToday
More than 562,000 tests of troops taken before they deployed have not been readministered on their return by military health officials, the records show. That means the Pentagon could be missing thousands of cases of brain injury, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who helped write the 2008 order.
"This is a total failure," says Pascrell, co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. "We're failing to find TBI (traumatic brain injury) and post-traumatic stress disorder in an era when the military is trying to find and assist folks who need it."
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, and other Army officials say the test is flawed and no better than a "coin flip."
The test, called the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), produces too many false positive results, said Lt. Col. Michael Russell, head of the Army's ANAM program.
The test "was promised ... as a sort of 'pregnancy test' for (mild) TBI. It has failed to deliver," says Russell, adding that false results could be triggered by medication, such as Benadryl.
BRAIN DAMAGE: Two wars produce unique and puzzling injuries
MILITARY: Mental health stays rising
FAITH: Ministries pave a spiritual path to help veterans with PTSD
This misrepresents the test, which is designed only to alert doctors that a soldier's thinking process has declined and further evaluation is necessary, says Tresa Roebuck-Spencer, a neuropsychologist with the University of Oklahoma, which develops and distributes the testing program for the Army. She says research shows that false positives drop significantly when the post-deployment test is compared with the original exam.
In that role, this kind of test would be a useful tool for screening all returning troops as Congress intended, say two military neurologists, Air Force Col. Michael Jaffee, director of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and Cmdr. Jack Tsao, director of TBI programs for the Navy and Marines.
"Anything that would help us to better diagnose ... servicemembers who may need further care or follow-up is welcome," Tsao says.
ANAM is a roughly 20-minute computerized test that scores areas such as reaction time, learning speed, short-term memory and mathematical processing. It also gauges a servicemember's mood, fatigue and history of any head injury.
Congress passed the test order in January 2008. Ward Casscells, then the military's top medical officer, ordered in May 2008 that the ANAM test be given pre-deployment while military experts studied it and other tests for both pre- and post-deployment use. That study is not expected to be completed until 2013.
In November 2008, Schoomaker barred post-deployment screening with ANAM.
About 575,000 pre-deployment tests have been gathered at a cost of about $30 each. Only 12,000 to 13,000 tests have been used for follow-up comparisons, most for a study at Fort Campbell, Ky.
The military relies largely on self-reporting symptoms in diagnosing mild TBI suffered in combat. About 5% to 15% suffer persistent problems.
Reposted from USAToday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)