Thoughts on Bin Laden's Death, Photos, and a 5/2 World

Yesterday AMVETS National Commander Jerry Hotop and I sat down to formulate AMVETS' reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden at the hands of U.S. Navy SEALs in the Pakistani suburb of Abbottabad.

Needless to say, there was such overwhelming emotion behind our discussion. I served a year in Iraq in support of the Global War on Terror, and Cmdr. Hotop is a veteran and a Blue Star Father whose son, Dean Hotop, also served in Iraq.

Thankfully, we were able to keep our thoughts fairly concise, as you can read here, but to me, this doesn't even scratch the surface on what this means for our nation.

Over the last day we've seen hundreds of analysts and pundits discuss how this most certainly is not the end of Al Qaeda or transnational terrorism as the network's weapon of choice. However, I feel this is a major symbolic victory for our nation that strikes at the heart of Al Qaeda's ideology.

September 11, 2001 has in many ways come to define my life and the lives of those closest to me--whether it was pulling emergency guard duty in the days after 9/11, deploying to Iraq for a year, working here in Washington, or losing friends and watching lives change forever. Though I never questioned whether or not our military was succeeding in the War on Terror, I had lingering doubts about whether we could translate our incremental success on the battlefield to success in the public eye, which seemed to be growing increasingly weary of the open-ended commitment. By hunting down Osama Bin Laden and putting a bullet through his skull, we've conveyed that ever-important message of success.

It was always a sore spot for me that we failed to catch Bin Laden. To me, he was going to be the one who got away, only emboldening our enemies. All the "key lieutenants" or "masterminds" that we've caught or killed over the years never seemed to resonate with the American public, and ongoing operations and successes in Afghanistan seemed to be continually buried in the headlines.

I was honestly concerned that we would soon learn that Bin Laden died back in 2007 of natural causes, surrounded by loved ones and criminal cronies. To know now that he died at the end of an American rifle, facing those he victimized, makes me feel as though justice has been served.

With that said, I feel it's time to release the photos. I'm confident that Bin Laden's corpse is already feeding the fishes at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, but one can already see conspiracy theories floating around the internet about whether it was really Bin Laden, or whether this was some kind of publicity stunt. I know this is garbage, but much like we saw with the death of Saddam Hussein, his sons, Mussaub Al-Zarkawi, and others, our enemies need to see proof to believe it's true.

To me, this proof cuts off the head of our enemy and strikes deeply at the morale of those who have sworn allegiance to Bin Laden. Over the last few months we've seen Al Qaeda significantly weakened ideologically by the nonviolent secular revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the ongoing secular uprisings across the Arab world. The death of Bin Laden proves once-and-for-all that the end game for Al Qaeda is not the empty promise of a path to overthrowing nebulous tyranny, but rather brutal, violent, and meaningless death.



I am extremely proud to be an American today. I feel as though my sacrifices and the sacrifices of those closest to me who served in the military have been validated. Our decade of hard work has yielded the results our nation needed.

When Americans started to gather at the White House and Ground Zero, it was easy to see that the crowds were largely young and mostly college students. What surprised me, though, was how many had American flags readily available; and I was particularly moved when the crowd belted out the Star Spangled Banner and other patriotic staples. These young Americans are much more patriotic than I ever gave them credit for and I think it's a testament to our nation's pride and unity--despite what we may have seen and read in the news in recent months.

Though I know this does not bring an abrupt end to our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Horn of Africa, and elsewhere, I believe that this is the most significant victory for the United States since the demise of Adolf Hitler. This was justice. This brings closure to the families who lost their loved ones on 9/11 and the families who lost loved ones subsequently on the battlefield.

As President Barack Obama said in his address to the nation, this demonstrates that we, as Americans, can accomplish anything. To me, that means we can vanquish our enemies in preservation of the ideals that we cherish. Though we must still be vigilant, I'm personally looking forward to a post-Bin Laden world--a 5/2 World--where our nation no longer lives in fear and uncertainty, but once again prospers off of the ingenuity, pride and unwavering dedication of our citizens.

(Image: U.S. Marine Corps veterans Mike Demo, center, and Bill Cortese, right, drove 30 minutes to New York's Ground Zero, May 2, 2011, to mark the news of Osama bin Laden's death. Two of Cortese's cousins were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Randall Clinton. Video: Official White House video of President Obama's address to the nation on the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.)

UPDATE: Stop Loss Pay Deadline Extended AGAIN

Here's the latest countdown to the deadline:

More Info: www.Defense.gov/StopLoss

Last night, Congress passed legislation once again extending the deadline for Stop Loss Special Pay benefits until midnight, Dec. 18.

Many eligible veterans still have not claimed their $500-per-month benefit for involuntary extension after 9/11, which could be worth up to $3,500 or more, according to the Pentagon.

AMVETS encourages all potentially-eligible Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans to apply for the benefit. To learn more about Stop Loss Special Pay, Click Here.

For more about Stop Loss Special Pay extensions, check out Military Times' coverage by Clicking Here.

My Reaction to the End of Combat in Iraq

Tonight, President Barack Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq have ended for the United States, to which I say, as a veteran of the conflict, it's about time.

I was happy to hear the President acknowledge that through the hard work of America's military men and women, our nation succeeded in its missions, affording Iraq the opportunity to pursue a prosperous future. The President was also clear to note that the American commitment will continue in a variety of ways.

When I was called to serve in Iraq in 2003, we were told that our mission was regime change in an effort to bring stability to a country ruled by a maniacal tyrant. With Saddam Hussein deposed, tried, and executed; his sons killed in battle; al-Qaeda in Iraq marginalized; and a new constitution in place, what more do American combat forces really have to offer? In my view, we have more than kept our promise to the people of Iraq. Now it's their turn.

While in Iraq, I remember speaking with a middle-aged Iraqi businessman who was very candid about the Coalition mission in Iraq. The man told me that he and his family were eternally grateful for freeing Iraq from Saddam. However, he cautioned that Iraqis were a proud people who yearned to make decisions for themselves--after all, prior to Hussein seizing power, the secular nation had capably taken care of its affairs. He warned that many would grow weary of a foreign presence in their country.

Unfortunately, the imminent power vacuum in Iraq was conducive to other outside entities influencing the course of Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian influences attempted to subvert American and Iraqi efforts, leading to a spike in violence. Thankfully, American military leaders--including President George W. Bush--had the foresight to retake control of the situation. Through the troop surge, Iraqis were given the space to continue their business developing the country. Proud Iraqis then turned on al-Qaeda leaders after scores of brutal attacks on on their fellow countrymen, recognizing that the terrorists' empty promises were no viable way forward.

Critics have pointed to President Obama's finite deadline as a capitulation to the forces that sought to destabilize Iraq. To me, this is bunk. At some point the Iraqis need to know that America will leave them to their own devices--whatever they may be. Short of colonization (which would be a completely absurd proposition) there's no realistic way for the United States to make an open-ended commitment to Iraq. To me, the brave men and women of the U.S. military have done more than enough.

The Iraqis I know and am proud to call friends simply want what we want here in America. They want to go to work, provide for their families, and give their children better lives than they had. This is why I'm confident Iraq will succeed when left to make decisions on their own fate.

That being said, I must criticize those who view the drawdown in Iraq as a stalemate or an admission of American defeat. On a strategic level, the U.S. military accomplished its objective of regime change long ago. WMDs or no WMDs, at no time in the future will Saddam Hussein or his murdering sons usurp control of an Iraqi state now free to determine its own course. Whatever the new government becomes over the years may not be exactly what American political leaders envision, but we could never realistically have control of that outcome, as an outside player.

Of my time in Iraq and the subsequent years that some of those closest to me spent in the desert, I must say I'm proud of what we accomplished. We projected American power and succeeded in every objective with professionalism and pride. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice made it in the name of the ideals we cherish as Americans, and a grateful American nation and a grateful Iraq will never forget.

Though the President stressed that we must now focus on our nation's pressing issues, such as the economy, I was proud to hear that he also stressed a continued responsibility to prosecute the Global War on Terror (Osama Bin Laden is still at large), project American power and continue to serve the needs of our nation's veterans.

Though we have seen tremendous improvements in veterans' benefits over the last few years, ranging from advance VA appropriations, to the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, family caregiver, and unified VA/DoD health records, much more needs to be done. The commitment to our veterans must go beyond the immediate needs. Our nation must be committed to its veterans long after the conflicts end.

We must fix the claims backlog, meet the needs of our female veterans, better serve our rural and remote veterans communities, stymie the causes of homelessness, and ensure that veterans have viable employment options after the military.

Personally, I'm eager to see what happens now that Americans have transferred authority and I have confidence that Iraq will prosper in the long run.

-Ryan

(Image: Then-Spc. Ryan Gallucci, alongside Moldovan soldiers, smoking a cigar the day Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq, December 2003. Photo by Ryan Moniz.)

Symposium Day Two: Compiling Reports

This morning, each breakout session for the 2010 AMVETS Symposium for 21st Century Veterans reconvened to review yesterday's notes, discuss their findings and begin compiling the final report.

After yesterday's charged discussions on issues critical to Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans, the small subgroups are now comparing notes on veterans' health care, benefits, and transition assistance. This afternoon, the three breakout groups will come together to compile final recommendations, which will be delivered on the floor of the AMVETS National Convention tomorrow morning.

"Yesterday's subgroups really picked up the ball and ran with it, making this symposium their own," said AMVETS National Legislative Director Ray Kelley, who is facilitating this week's work. "AMVETS has taken a hands-off approach to these discussions in an effort to really learn what today's issues are from the veterans, themselves, and I'm happy to see it working."

Kelley went on to say that closing the sessions to the public helped to ensure candid discussion among participants--some of whom continue to serve on active duty.

"I've really learned something watching the conversations unfold," said Kelley, "and I'm eager to see tomorrow's final report."

Tomorrow's final symposium report is open to the public and will take place at 7:30 a.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the Galt House in Louisville. AMVETS delegates from around the country will be on hand to listen to the recommendations and AMVETS will use this week's findings to compile a new report to bring to Washington.

If you were unable to join us in Louisville, but think there is an issue AMVETS should address at the symposium, please let us know by commenting on this blog.

For more updates on the symposium and this week's AMVETS National Convention, check back regularly with American Veteran Online.

(Photo: Veterans fill out name tags as the second day of the symposium convenes. Photo by Ryan Gallucci.)

Reps. Boccieri and Hunter Introduce Resolution on Military Funerals

Last week, two Iraq veterans serving in Congress, Reps. John Boccieri (D-Ohio) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the Supreme Court to preserve privacy for military families mourning their loved ones.

The resolution, House Continuing Resolution 261, would express the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court should uphold lower court decisions that military funeral proceedings should be private, peaceful ceremonies where Gold Star families are allowed to mourn with dignity.

The resolution comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case of Gold Star father Albert Snyder, who sued the Kansas church that picketed the funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snider, who was killed in Iraq in 2006.

The church, which we refuse to acknowledge on this blog, has picketed military funerals since 2005, brandishing offensive signs and screaming at mourning Gold Star families, posturing that American troops were dying in combat as a result of America's tolerance for homosexuality.

In an effort to protect grieving families, motorcycle groups like the Patriot Guard Riders and AMVETS Riders have offered escorts and cordons for funeral processions alongside local law enforcement.

After being exposed to the group's hateful message, Snyder decided to take action, suing the Kansas church for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Snyder was originally awarded more than $10 million in damages, until the decision was overturned by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also ordered Snyder to pay associated court fees for the Kansas church.

With the case making its way to the Supreme Court, AMVETS leaders support Boccieri and Hunter's resolution, calling to preserve dignified military funerals.

"What this radical church has done is abhorrent and cannot simply be viewed in the context of preserving First Amendment rights," said AMVETS National Commander Duane J. Miskulin. "Our grieving Gold Star families deserve only the utmost respect when mourning the loss of their loved ones. AMVETS hopes that the Supreme Court will agree that picketing military funerals violates the personal rights of a grieving family."

The Boccieri/Hunter resolution, which has already garnered support from fellow veterans in Congress, Reps. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.), among others.

Both Hunter and Boccieri said the issue was personal in nature to them, given their experiences in the current conflicts. Hunter has served multiple combat tours, leading Marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Boccieri, a life member of AMVETS Post No. 44 in Youngstown, Ohio, flew C-130 missions in Iraq.

"Service members who make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation--as well as their families--deserve our unending respect and appreciation," said Hunter. "Those who attempt to discredit their sacrifice by hurling insults and engaging in other offensive behavior bring great shame to themselves. The right to free speech is one of our nation’s most fundamental and protected rights, but it’s unfortunate when certain individuals or groups think it’s appropriate, for the purpose of creating controversy, to publicly malign our fallen heroes and disrupt such an important moment for their families. It’s my hope is that the Supreme Court will move to uphold existing laws that allow these families to mourn the loss of their loved ones without disturbance."

"The right to free speech ends where the privacy of a family mourning the loss of a service member begins,” said Boccieri. “While our law doesn’t restrict hate groups from spewing their venom, it forces them to do it at a respectful distance from the grieving family. This is personal for me after flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of Baghdad."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the Snyder case earlier this year and it has been placed on the docket for the current session, with a decision expected to come by fall.

American Veteran will continue to follow developments closely.

(Image: Dear Colleague letter from Reps. Boccieri and Hunter, calling for support to H.CON.RES 261. Letter courtesy of the Office of Congressman John Boccieri.)

Live from Capitol Hill: House Hearing on Vets' Unemployment; AMVETS to Meet With Legislators on Assistance Dogs

This afternoon, AMVETS will be on Capitol Hill for a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee hearing on veterans' unemployment and for follow-up meetings with legislators on assistance dogs for wounded veterans.

Though AMVETS will not testify during this afternoon's hearing, AMVETS Deputy National Legislative Director Christina Roof submitted a statement for the record on behalf of AMVETS.

The House VA Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity called the hearing in the wake of recent veterans' unemployment numbers, which point to an ever-growing crisis, particularly among young male Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

The hearing convenes at 1 p.m. in the VA committee chambers in Cannon 334. To view live video from the hearing, Click Here.

This afternoon, AMVETS members Luis Montalvan and his assistance dog Tuesday will join Roof on Capitol Hill for follow-up meetings on last month's visits with legislators to discuss assistance dogs for wounded veterans.

Montalvan and Roof will meet with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), the leading voice on veterans' assistance dogs on Capitol Hill, and Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House VA Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, to discuss VA's pilot program funded through last year's military construction budget as well as the provisions in Title 38 allowing for veterans to receive compensation for assistance dog costs through VA's prosthetics and sensory aides office.

American Veteran will follow today's hearing and this afternoon's meetings closely. Check back later for updates.

Women in Service: Marine Corps Lioness Program

Once Iraq transformed from kinetic combat operations into a stabilization effort in 2005, Iraqis quickly noticed an easy way to subvert checkpoints by using Iraqi females as suicide bombers and smugglers, exploiting American compassion to Iraqi cultural norms.

In an effort to counteract this exploitation of Iraqi women, while preserving cultural ideals that prohibit men from touching Iraqi women, American military leaders took a bold step, attaching female volunteer troops to combat units.

The U.S. Marine Corps was one of the first to formally implement its "Lioness Program," where female Marines could join combat troops at checkpoints and conduct outreach operations with Iraqi women. Initially, the primary mission of Lioness Marines was to search females looking to cross these checkpoints, but the mission has evolved over the years to include Civil Affairs-type operations and cultural outreach efforts.

From the program's inception, female volunteers quickly emerged from all different military occupational specialties looking to participate in the program.

In order to prepare volunteers for their cursory combat role, each female Marine was put through a week of special training in different weapons systems, language and cultural norms, Marine Corps Martial Arts Program tactics, and combat lifesaving techniques.

The Lioness Program--though not officially considered a "combat" role, considering it is constituted as a brigade-sized elementl--was the first time that female American troops served in the same capacity as their infantry and combat arms MOS counterparts.

The program has been credited with improving cultural relations in Iraq and was just expanded to Afghanistan this month.

Led by Marine 2nd Lt. Johanna Shaffer, the Afghan version of the Marine Lioness Program conducted its first mission as part of a cordon-and-search in support the recent Operation Pathfinder alongside 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment.

In a recent interview with CENTCOM Public Affairs, Shaffer acknowledged that the Afghan version of the program varied greatly from its Iraqi counterpart, given the cultural differences, but that it remained a necessary conduit to reaching out to Afghan women and children.

“We also do not know much about the daily life of Afghan women,” Shaffer said. “This provides us not only the opportunity to learn about the women, but also to build and maintain faith and trust of the Afghan women.”

Military leaders have acknowledged how critical programs like the Marine Corps Lioness program have become to U.S. combat operations, with similar programs online in both the Army and Marine Corps, and expansion into both major theaters of operation.

Now in its fifth year, Lioness continues to raise the bar for females who wish to serve on the front lines.

(Photos: Top: Marine Cpl. Jacqueline Parker, a supply warehouse NCO, conducts AK-47 shooting drills during Lioness Program training in Iraq. Photo by Lance Cpl. Jessica Aranda, released. Bottom: Marine Cpl. Jennifer San Martin searches a women crossing a checkpoint in Haditha City, Iraq in March 2008. Photo by Cpl. Shawn Coolman, released.)

How "Hurt Locker" Missed the Mark

*I want to warn that this posting contains some language that may be offensive. I felt it necessary to explain my true feelings on the critically-acclaimed film.

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss the Oscar-nominated film "Hurt Locker" with the Washington Post. While the movie was frustrating on a number of levels for any veteran of the Iraq conflict, I feel as though legitimate criticisms were shrugged off by film industry experts, who only seem interested in patting each other on the back over Mark Boal's supposed "near perfect" war film.

Sure, filmmakers take artistic license with their subject matter, and Boal admits he took some licenses to make his film more entertaining for the 99 percent of Americans completely disengaged from the current wars.

However, one critical analysis I found missing from the Washington Post story was that the character of Sgt. 1st Class William James was poorly developed.

Before the film opens, the audience learns that war is a drug. Understandable. I've seen it myself. Friends who deployed alongside me in Iraq couldn't wait to return to the fight once our tour was over. In "Hurt Locker," the audience doesn't learn this about James until the last scene in the movie. Even then, it left me conflicted about how I was supposed to feel about the film's main character.

For the two hours leading up to James' homecoming, I felt he was an irresponsible, brash, self-centered shit head--a shining example of the Army's "Fuck Up, Move Up" program. War can be an addiction, but something has to cause it. We never learn what that is for James. He never explains it to his teammates—never mentions his prior experiences. Nothing. At one point, James nonchalantly boasts that he has disarmed hundreds of bombs. Great, you're awesome, Sgt. James. When did you do this? Why? How has it affected you? What happened that caused your supposed addiction to war?

All in all, the inaccuracies were annoying and the poor portrayals of military leadership were insulting to any modern veteran, but the story, itself, was poorly constructed--never explaining the film’s premise.

Boal insists that his film was not supposed to depict real life, but rather an exaggeration of realistic events. He failed at this, too, and to demonstrate I must compare it to the upcoming film "Green Zone" with Matt Damon. From the trailer, "Green Zone" allows the viewer to immediately suspend disbelief, recognizing that Damon's character is a machination of Hollywood inspiration—a Superman-type accomplishing ridiculous feats in the easily-recognizable war zone. "Hurt Locker" never detaches itself from its realistic settings, and critics didn't care to notice.

New York Times, Time Magazine and scores of other major media outlets praised the film's realistic portrayal of the war in Iraq--assertions that immediately disqualify Boal's statements that he intended to make simply an action flick set in the war zone.

In the Washington Post story, Columbia University film professor David McKenna said that if veterans did not like the movie, they should make their own. Again, the film industry insiders are missing the point. Today's veterans love nothing more than a good contemporary war flick. We usually eat them up. “Jarhead,” “Generation Kill,” “Black Hawk Down,” “Taking Chance," even “Three Kings” and “In the Army Now” had their redeeming qualities.

Over the weekend, New York Times writer Melena Ryzik accused the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans’ community of launching a smear campaign against “Hurt Locker” in the wake of acceptance speeches from Boal and director Katheryn Bigelow critical of the Iraq war. To be honest, I don’t watch award shows and could care less about their thoughts on American foreign policy. I’d rather watch “Family Guy,” or Food Network on my Sunday nights. I just thought “Hurt Locker” was a bad movie.

After reading the reviews and hearing of the critical acclaim, I was genuinely excited to watch “Hurt Locker” when it became available On Demand in January. I expected something reminiscent of “Black Hawk Down” or “Jarhead.” A friend of mine, Patrick Murray, a Marine Corps veteran wounded in Iraq, set aside a night of Buffalo wings and beer to watch it.

The film started off well enough, until Sgt. 1st Class James entered the picture. Murray and I were screaming at the TV for the next two hours as the action became more and more preposterous and the storyline became increasingly disjointed and confusing. We had to shut it off more than three times and only finished the film to see how the train-wreck ended—wondering if we should call Comcast and demand our money back.

In many ways, Boal's multiple miscues and misplaced artistic licenses are a disservice to Bigelow, whose direction magically recreated the war time environment down to some of the smallest details. Through her lens, she was able to evoke the feeling of what life was like with boots on the ground--an eerie feeling for any Iraq war veteran. Unfortunately, there's only so much you can polish a turd.

The “Hurt Locker” was a complete failure on so many levels, which is why I was disappointed to see it garner so much acclaim at the recent British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) awards--especially for best screenplay--meaning it will likely garner similar acclaim at the Oscars this Sunday.

I can only hope in the future Hollywood takes better care of this subject. After all, the true measure of any good war film is how that conflict's veterans receive it.

To read Christian Davenport's story in the Washington Post on veterans' reaction to "Hurt Locker," Click Here.

Fake Veteran Arrested, Charged With "Stolen Valor"

For months, AMVETS has been following the story of Richard Standlof, a 32-year-old Colorado man who claimed to be an Iraq veteran, a Purple Heart and Silver Star recipient, a Naval Academy graduate, and a 9/11 Pentagon survivor. However, it was all a farce.

On Sunday, Standlof was finally arrested in San Diego, Calif. and charged under the 2005 Stolen Valor Act. CNN has been covering the scandal behind Standlof and reported on his arrest. Standlof also admitted he was a fraud to CNN's Anderson Cooper in the spring.



In Colorado, Standlof was also known as a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq and a veterans' advocate for his group Colorado Veterans Alliance. Though Standlof claims he gained nothing from his work with the Alliance and that he only sought to help veterans, AMVETS doesn't buy it.

Standlof, who was living in a homeless shelter on 9/11, at the very least diverted philanthropy dollars from legitimate veterans' causes and helped to sully the credibility of established veterans charities.

Now, Standlof faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine under the Stolen Valor Act. AMVETS supported the passage of the act in 2005. Today, AMVETS leaders from around the country hope that the Colorado courts throw the book at Standlof.

Cmdr. Hapner's Visit to the Front Lines

Last week, AMVETS National Commander John C. Hapner had the opportunity to visit troops serving on the front lines in Iraq. Hapner, along with leaders from other top veterans' organizations, took part in a Department of Defense informational visit, which was designed to ensure that the veterans' community has a complete picture of the situations molding our newest generation of combat veterans.

AMVETS recently highlighted Hapner's trip overseas and lessons-learned on the official AMVETS Web site.

Department of Defense photographers furnished several photos from Hapner's visit, which American Veteran online is happy to share with our readers:

(Above: Cmdr. Hapner, second from right, met with NATO forces training the Iraqi National Police. DoD photo, released.)

(Above: Cmdr. Hapner, right, traveled via Blackhawk helicopter in the requisite body armor and kevlar, while visiting troops on forward operating bases across Iraq. DoD photo, released.)

Since returning from Iraq, Cmdr. Hapner has once again hit the road to visit with AMVETS across the country. However, Hapner seized the opportunity to shoot dozens of photos chronicling his experiences while in Iraq. Once Hapner returns to National Headquarters in Lanham, Md., American Veteran Online will share additional photos from Commander's personal collection.

(Top Photo: Cmdr. Hapner, second from right, poses for a photo alongside one of the remaining portraits of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Characatures of Hussein were omnipresent in cities and towns across Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. DoD photo, released.)

This Week at American Veteran

This week at American Veteran, we will follow the developments out of Philadelphia as Congress and the VA address recent oversight issues at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center's prostate cancer treatment unit.

We will also publish additional photos from National Commander John C. Hapner's recent visit to Iraq.

Congress is in recess this week for Independence Day, and American Veteran Online will put together a special piece in honor of our nation's birthday.

As always, we're eager to hear from our readers around the country, and we're always looking for Keeping Posted content and submissions for our Women in Service series.

Army Should Reconsider Censoring Stars & Stripes

Yesterday, Stars & Stripes ran a story about the Army's refusal to embed reporter Heath Druzin with the 1st Cavalry Division in Mosul. Druzin had previously been embedded with another unit in Mosul.

Stripes, an independent newspaper partially funded by the military, accused the Army of censoring their reporter based on apparent dissatisfaction with past coverage.

As a writer, Stripes' accusation is serious to me and one that the Army must address. I was particularly disturbed at the tired talking point provided by an Army PAO attacking Druzin's journalistic integrity. Here's a sample from the Stripes' story:

"Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division’s 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.

"'Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news,' Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin’s embed request."

Aren't we past this kind of trite accusation? I've heard this "positive news" spin far too many times since 2003--I may even be guilty of reiterating the assertion from time to time while I served in Iraq--but the assessment of Druzin's work is completely off base.

For some perspective, I took a look at the March 8 story in question. Interestingly enough, I found two stories filed by Druzin on that day--one critically assessing the tenuous security situation in the Mosul, the other highlighting the positive work of the battalion.

To me, it looked as though Druzin made a concerted effort in his coverage to capture the whole story. In fact, he quoted a U.S. soldier in the security story on why the residents of Mosul clearly preferred for the Americans to leave.

While this first story certainly painted a grim picture of the last insurgent hotbed in Iraq, it appears to be factual journalism and it does not malign the Army in any way. Moreover, the second story carefully chronicled the efforts of the soldiers patrolling Mosul and the marked improvements in the war-torn city. Both stories clearly refute the Army's assertion that Druzin refused to cover the collaboration among Iraqi and American forces.

After reading through Druzin's body of work from his previous assignment in Mosul, it's easy to see why Stripes is eager to send him back. He clearly knows the lay of the land and has the ability to track down the most accurate and compelling details. Hopefully, the Army will reconsider its position as U.S. forces prepare to withdraw from Iraq's major cities at the end of the month. Mosul is certainly a critical piece of this story, and it would be a disservice to the readers of Stars & Stripes for a green reporter to cover it.

Stripes is in a difficult position with the military. The publication has the duty to report independently to members of the U.S. military deployed overseas. However, Stripes has repeatedly faced scrutiny over their ethical responsibilities and their ties to the Pentagon. In light of this, reporting from within the pages of Stripes is usually regarded as reputable within the military community and beyond. It would be a shame to see a short-sighted decision on the part of the Army sully that reputation.

-Ryan

(The contents above strictly reflect the opinion of Ryan Gallucci as a contributor to American Veteran magazine. They do not reflect the official stance of the AMVETS organization. Photo: Army Spc. Rodney Davidson reads a copy of Stars & Stripes while deployed to Iraq in 2005. Photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Reynaldo Ramon, released.)

Press Conference on Proposed Burn Pit Legislation

This morning, Congressman Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.) will be joined by veterans and veterans' advocates on Capitol Hill, including IAVA and DAV, for a press conference to discuss burn pit exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bishop recently introduced the Military War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act (H.R. 2491), which would commission a database and subsequent study by the Department of Defense to monitor troops' exposure and resultant health problems, along with new regulations on waste disposal in the combat zone, prohibiting the U.S. military and its contractors from activating new burn pits.

In the last year, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have brought the burn pit issue to light after many have discovered persistent health problems associated with exposure to chemicals given off by burn pits in their areas of operations.

Military Times reported this morning that the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center has published increasingly high mortality rates for respiratory and chest conditions among troops deployed from 2001-2008. The report also demonstrated nearly twice as many instances of tumors (benign and malignant) among the same group.

"It is important for the Pentagon to identify and track troops who may have been exposed to these dangerous toxins, and then ensure new pits don't pop up across the combat zone," said AMVETS Legislative Director Ray Kelley who recently served in Iraq. "Since so many troops have separated from the military since 2001, it will be a daunting task to track down everyone who may have been exposed, or may be suffering from related health conditions. As this legislation moves forward, we hope both Secretary of Defense Gates and VA Secretary Shinseki will do everything in their power to ensure no post-9/11 veterans fall through the cracks."

Check back with American Veteran Online for more details on today's press conference and H.R. 2419, as it moves through committee.

Briton Climbs California's El Capitan to Benefit Wounded Troops

This week, British Army Maj. Phil Packer is in the midst of his latest task to raise money for wounded warriors. Packer is in California scaling the face of El Capitan in California's Yosemite National Park.

Packer started the climb on Sunday and expects to finish the 1,800 foot climb either late today or early tomorrow morning.

Since Packer lost the use of his legs from a spinal chord injury he sustained from an RPG attack in Iraq, he has dedicated himself to completing daunting physical challenges to raise money for his fellow wounded troops. To date, Packer has already reached his initial goal of raising more than one million pounds for the Help for Heroes program and he hopes to raise much more.

Last month, American Veteran Online highlighted Packer's work when he completed the Flora London Marathon.

To visit Packer's official Web site, track his progress on El Capitan, or to become involved, Click Here.

(Photo: British Maj. Phil Packer climbing the face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. Photo courtesy of www.philpacker.com.)

An open letter to the ACLU

Dear ACLU,

I just finished reading your attorneys' commentary on CNN.com regarding President Obama's decision to fight the ill-conceived release of additional detainee mistreatment photos.

In your commentary, you attempted to berate the current President and the previous administration for, "widespread and systemic" abuse. As a veteran who served in Iraq and handled detainees from time to time, this couldn't be further from the truth.

While my unit trained at Ft. Bragg and upon our arrival in Kuwait, we were briefed repeatedly on the rules of engagement, our general orders, and the laws of war to ensure that we would know how to responsibly handle enemy combatants and detainees once they were neutralized on the battlefield. Unfortunately, we had to put our training into practice our first day after crossing the berm.

We encountered about 50 military-aged men looting weapons from an Iraqi military installation in Taji, just north of Baghdad. The unit I was attached to managed to gain control of the situation, took possession of the arms, and built a cordon around the detainees near one of the facility's perimeter walls. We would now need to wait for military police and intelligence units to join up with us to properly vet and process the detainees.

As nightfall rolled in, my teammates and I entered into the equation to pull security on the group. Once Intelligence was on site, they began to speak with each detainee individually. The conversations were often brief and even-tempered. Most of the men were immediately released. However, a handful of the answers didn't satisfy the interrogators, and these men remained in our custody.

Only having a vague knowledge of how to handle detainees from our earlier briefings, the intelligence soldiers pulled us aside and gave us another hasty--albeit critical--briefing on how we needed to handle these men. Time and again they reiterated that we could only use proportional force to ensure they stayed put, until the unit commander decided the best next course of action.

"Proportional" meant that we were only authorized to keep watch over the men and ensure they didn't try to escape or, worse, attack us. Intelligence was very clear that the ONLY circumstances under which we could draw our weapons is if we were in imminent danger of personal harm, meaning that the men somehow gained control of a weapon and turned to use it on us.

Next, we were obligated under international law to feed them, provide them with water, allow them to sleep, and render medical aide, if necessary. We were a little taken aback, since our rations were now on the line to ensure that these potential criminals were treated properly. But we did it. We field stripped a box of MREs, took the matches, hot sauce, and heaters, then demonstrated how to properly eat them with the help of our interpreter.

Contrary to popular belief, we weren't instructed to beat, harass, or otherwise "screw" with the detainees. In fact, Intelligence made it clear that we would face dire consequences if we even thought of mistreating them. The night came and went, the detainees stayed put, and we handed them off to another unit the next day.

We carried the lessons of that day with us throughout the deployment and dozens of other encounters with detainees. Does this sound like "widespread and systemic" patterns of abuse?

Over the years, stories have come to light regarding overseas rendition camps and detainee abuse incidents from troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither I nor the Pentagon seek to refute incidents of abuse, but the mischaracterization of the actions of all American troops is what troubles me. As I pointed out in my last posting on this issue, enemy combatants will always choose American custody over their local criminal justice system, or the killing houses of Al Qaeda. This should serve as a testament to the professionalism of our troops tasked with handling enemy combatants today.

Unfortunately, from your commentary I've gathered that you believe American troops are actually trained to harass and mistreat detainees as a matter of policy, which is patently false. The Pentagon (especially under the new Administration) has been very candid in its responses to illicit detainee abuse incidents. Today, very stringent measures are in place to assure that detainees are treated equitably, as evidenced by numerous independent reports on American detention facilities, which is why Obama has decided to fight the photos' release.

The Pentagon has taken corrective action. Dated photos from incidents for which justice has been meted out will not provide anything of value to the public discourse.

In your commentary, you also purported that the President's directive lacked a "limiting principle," meaning that blocking the release of these photos would only further the presumption that the Executive enjoys the ability to censor information at will.

The limiting principle to this decision is obvious: These particular, old, subpoenaed detainee photos, which have been used in old investigations that have since been closed do not need to be released publicly. To me, this seems like a clear limit. The Administration has already demonstrated considerable consideration for transparency, even lifting the decades-old ban on filming flag-draped coffins returning from the battlefield. In this individual case the President has chosen national security and the safety of our troops over your voyeuristic desires.

Some have argued that releasing the photos would demonstrate that the United States has changed its "old habits," somehow ensuring that the extremists we're fighting would see it as an olive branch from which we can move forward. We already know this is not true. No sooner had Obama been elected that Al Qaeda released an inflammatory statement seeking to defame him and the nation he now represents. Al Qaeda and its operatives will not respond to symbolic gestures.

However, Al Qaeda will seize on opportunities to use our own transparency against, as we've seen in the past. When the Abu Ghraib incident came to light, violence in Iraq spiked dramatically--from 52 U.S. deaths in March 2004 to 135 U.S. deaths in April 2004 after "60 Minutes" aired the photos.

In the commentary you noted that, "To give the government the power to suppress information because it might anger an unidentified set of people in an unspecified part of the world and ultimately endanger an ill-defined group of U.S. personnel would be to invest it with a virtually unlimited censorial power."

I have already refuted the "unlimited censorship" idea, now I want to refute your remaining ambiguous assertions. The "unidentified set of people" is Al Qaeda and its network of operatives. The "unspecified part of the world" is Southwest Asia, particularly Iraq, Afghanistan and the Peshwar region of Pakistan. Finally, the "ill-defined group of U.S. personnel" is the more than 300,000 American military men and women who have selflessly volunteered to serve in harm's way across the aforementioned regions, as our lives go on tonight. Your argument is not salient, and, as a veteran, I take offense to being labeled as an "ill-defined group of U.S. personnel."

I guess I just don't understand why you want to possess these photos so badly. To generate more hits for your Web sites and blogs? To set in motion a complete reversal of all progress in Iraq? To compromise our latest surge of forces in Afghanistan? To further malign the selfless acts of our military men and women?

I'm appalled and offended by the proposition of releasing these photos, and I'm happy to see that Obama has listened to his top military minds on this issue. I hope these photos never see the light of day, giving our enemies another opportunity to kill or maim Americans fighting to keep us safe.

-Ryan

(Photo: Members of my unit discussing what to do with military-aged Iraqi men caught looting a military installation north of Baghdad in 2003. I am the second soldier from the right, pulling security. Photo courtesy of Ryan Gallucci.)

Rep. Duncan Hunter questions Medal of Honor criteria

During yesterday's House Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2010 Department of the Army budget, California Congressman and Marine Corps combat veteran Duncan D. Hunter (R-52) questioned Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey on troubling trends in today's Medal of Honor awards process.

Video from yesterday's full hearing can be viewed Here. Hunter's question on the Medal of Honor can be found at 1:06:30 into the video.

Since 9/11, the U.S. military has only awarded five Medals of Honor, all posthumous, raising some eyebrows within the veterans' community. At this year's AMVETS Medal of Honor Inaugural Breakfast, several living Medal of Honor recipients expressed concerns over the lack of living recipients from the present conflicts, sparking AMVETS to ask the same questions as Hunter.

Hunter asked Gen. Casey directly whether or not the criteria for the medal have changed, or whether our troops simply had not committed any acts of valor over the last eight years of close-quarters combat.

After seemingly avoiding the issue of characterizing valorous acts or acknowledging a overt change in policy, Casey assured Hunter that he would look into the awards process.

As this story develops over the next few months, check back with American Veteran Online for updates.

Rep. Hunter was recently featured in the spring issue of American Veteran magazine, highlighting Iraq veterans recently elected to Congress.

Obama fights to keep detainee photos secure

Yesterday, President Barack Obama took a strong stance against the ACLU, which is demanding the release of alleged detainee abuse photos from Iraq and Afghanistan.

After speaking with his generals on the ground, Obama decided that releasing the photos would only embolden our enemies, endangering American troops around the world.

Obama noted that there was nothing particularly compelling in the new images, and that it would only provide fodder to our enemies at a time when we have made tremendous strides in Iraq and during a pivotal transition period in Afghanistan.

Personally, I applaud the President's decision to keep our troops' best interest in mind.

Today, our men and women in uniform are fighting against a brutal enemy that has never demonstrated consideration for international law or compassion for battlefield detainees.

To the contrary, our troops have shown considerable care and compassion for enemy combatants. Troops who have served in the combat zone know first-hand that Iraqis and Afghanis caught up in the fighting would rather spend some time in an American detention facility with three hots and a cot, than be turned over to the local criminal justice system, or worse, Al Qaeda.

Naturally, there have been flaws in our system, as we saw through the Abu Ghraib debacle. Fortunately, troops and leaders who have violated our standards of conduct have been held accountable. Releasing these photos would not serve the public interest. Rather, it would be dangerous for our troops on the ground. The President has made a responsible decision to fight their release.

Al Qaeda and its global network of extremists are surely chomping at the bit for the U.S. government to release more photos of someone defacing the Koran or verbally dressing down a detainee. We should not seek to satisfy their need for increased propaganda against our troops.

I am proud of the stand President Obama has decided to take and his reasoning behind it. Our military has made tremendous progress over the last couple of years in our global contingency operations. Why would we jeopardize that progress and the safety of our volunteer forces to placate the ACLU?

-Ryan

(Media: Video: President Barack Obama addresses U.S. troops on a recent visit to Iraq. Official White House video. Photos, Middle: Detainees at a detention facility i Iraq participate in voluntary religious discussions with an Iraqi Imam. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Michael V. May, released. Bottom: A detainee receives medical care at a hospital in Guantanamo Bay. U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Sarah Cleveland, released.)

Tragic Baghdad Shooting Rekindles Combat Stress Debate

Yesterday's tragic shooting of five mental health counselors at Camp Liberty in Iraq has reopened the national dialogue on combat stress. Immediately following the news out of Baghdad that a U.S. service member took the lives of five of his fellow troops, speculation began as to the causes of such a heinous act. This morning, we learned that the soldier was a patient at the clinic struggling to cope with combat stress.

On CNN and the BBC yesterday, I reiterated the fact that combat stress and traumatic stress are germane to the combat experience. Where a veteran's reaction to combat stress develops into "post-traumatic stress disorder" is when a veteran becomes overwhelmed by the stressors, or cannot put experiences into the proper context, leading to patterns of self-destructive behavior.

When I returned from Iraq, I faced my own hurdles in coping with combat stress running the gamut from self-medication, to panic attacks, nightmares, anger and avoidance issues. However, I was able to quickly enroll with the VA health care system and sought proper counseling.

Don't get me wrong. This was by no means a "cure-all" to coping with combat stress. Anger issues still crop up, as do bouts with insomnia and avoidance. However, by working with the VA, I have been able to adapt properly.

In the military, we are taught to be tough, to be strong. These are necessary character traits when faced with the dangerous situations and difficult decisions that come in the heat of battle. When you're deployed to the combat zone, your body is at a chemically heightened state of alertness. Recent studies have even demonstrated that thought patterns may literally change to respond to now commonplace life-threatening situations.

When troops return home, this heightened state of alertness does not simply "go away." In fact, it's the natural reaction to such a profound experience. In this state, returning veterans may find that what had been commonplace in civilian life can now trigger thoughts and reactions reminiscent of combat--whether it's adverse reactions to crowded situations, unexpected loud noises, traffic, or even something as benign as traditional Muslim garb.

For troops who seek proper counseling and discuss their experiences, reintegration after combat often goes smoothly. However, troops who are unwilling to admit that they have gone through a life-altering experience, or who choose to self medicate as a coping mechanism will often degrade into patterns of self-destructive behavior, as I did in the beginning. In fact, the VA has acknowledged that PTSD is the leading cause of substance abuse and homelessness among veterans.

If you are a veteran who has had difficulty readjusting, the responsible course of action is not to "suck it up and drive on." The responsible course of action is to seek counseling from the VA.

Over the years, AMVETS has fought to dispel the negative stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health issues. Many troops believe they are tough enough to face these challenges on their own and that seeking treatment will somehow have a negative effect on their military or private sector careers. Many times, this is not the case.

Today, the Department of Defense has made significant strides in identifying potential combat stress issues and implemented new policies designed to encourage troops to seek treatment, rather than punishing those who admit they have trouble coping with combat-related issues. The department has also acknowledged that long, repeated deployments only exacerbate the situation, and Defense Secretary Gates has taken steps to alleviate the strain on service members and their families.

Recently, AMVETS testified before Congress on PTSD and pointed out the importance of proper implementation of the VA's recommendations outlined in the Uniformed Mental Health Services Handbook.

Over the last five years, VA has looked into discrepancies across the board in their treatment of combat stress, and a recent report suggests that progress has been slow coming. AMVETS hopes that the implementation of a new uniformed service and health record for DoD and VA will help alleviate some of the enrollment shortfalls for VA, but AMVETS also reiterates the need for additional counselors and increased access to services for rural and remote veterans.

We've heard all sorts of horror stories from veterans around the country in regards to enrollment with the VA, difficulty in scheduling appointments, and frustration over paperwork inconsistencies and bureaucracy. Many of these complaints are quite valid and have driven the work of AMVETS National Headquarters to demand systemic change.

Fortunately, we have made significant progress and leaders in Washington seem to recognize the gravity of this issue. Plus, AMVETS offers a cadre of national and state service officers who stand ready to assist veterans at VA Regional Offices across the country. An up-to-date list of service officers and contact information can be found by Clicking Here.

Some people think that PTSD is a new issue and have attempted to discredit those who seek treatment through the VA. However, I want to point this out: I've noted several times that simply discussing your experiences and placing them into the proper context is often the best step in alleviating combat stress issues.

When the WWII generation returned from war, not only were they the majority of the adult male population in the United States, but they were organized. AMVETS developed out of WWII with posts all across the country where veterans could gather socially and discuss their time overseas.

Organizations such as AMVETS provided an acceptable outlet for veterans to place wartime experiences into the proper context and our country became considerably stronger for it.

Today, AMVETS and our 1,200 posts nationwide have the unique opportunity to offer this kind of support once more to our newest generation of war heroes. So to find a list of AMVETS posts near you, Click Here.

Sometimes all it takes is a sympathetic ear who can tell you that everything is just fine.

-Ryan

If you are a veteran in immediate need of counseling, call the VA's 24-hour hotline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Press "1" for veterans.

If you have any questions or comments for AMVETS on the issue of combat stress, please post below. We read every comment and we do our best to respond to every question in a timely fashion.

Philadelphia Soldier Listed As "Whereabouts Unknown" in Afghanistan

Yesterday, The Department of Defense issued an official release regarding an attack on U.S. forces in the Konar Province of Afghanistan where two U.S. soldiers were killed and another is now listed as "whereabouts unknown."

The two soldiers killed in the attack were Sgt. James Pirtle of Colorado Springs, Colo., and Spc. Ryan King of Dallas, Ga. Both were assigned to Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division out of Fort Hood.

Following the attack, Staff Sgt. William Vile of Philadelphia, Pa., assigned to 1st BCT, 1st Infantry Division out of Fort Riley, Kansas, was listed as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown (DUSTWUN).

The thoughts and prayers of AMVETS and the editorial staff of American Veteran go out to the families of Pirtle, King, and Vile, and we implore DoD to do everything in its power to ensure the safe return of Vile to his unit.

We will keep tabs on this story as it develops. As of today, two U.S. troops are listed as missing or "whereabouts unknown." AMVETS calls for action on the part of our nation's military to ensure the safe and timely return of Staff Sgt. Vile and Army Spc. Ahmed Altaie.

This Week at American Veteran

This week at American Veteran, we will follow up with Congressmen John Boccieri, Mike Coffman and Duncan Hunter, each of whom was featured in the spring issue of American Veteran. The three newest Iraq veterans elected to Congress have kept busy since we had an opportunity to sit down with each of them shortly after taking office. American Veteran will highlight some of the key veterans' issues each congressman has sought to address early in their term.

We will also launch the first Battle Stripes story, highlighting the Army's 1st Infantry Division, the oldest continually active unit in the U.S. military.

We will also follow developments on Capitol Hill as AMVETS pushes to fund last summer's provision in the Higher Ed bill to commission student-veterans' centers on college campuses nationwide.

As a reminder, the VA continutes to accept applications for Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits (Chapter 33), and the Department of Defense has published the criteria for transferability of Chapter 33 benefits. Check out last Friday's post for futher details.

By now, all copies of the spring issue of American Veteran magazine should have reached your mailboxes. Please let us know what you think of the latest issue by posting your comments to this blog.