Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://snipurl.com/djec

The loud, clear voice of Iraq war's wounded vets

By Norman Solomon
Special to New York Newsday / The Seattle Times

IN wartime, the silence of the American dead is a vacuum that the powerful
in Washington try to fill. While loved ones are left with haunting
memories and excruciating sadness, the most amplified political voices use
predictable rhetoric to talk about ultimate sacrifices.

But the wounded do not disappear. They can speak for themselves. And many
more will be seen and heard in this decade. Thanks to improvements in
protective gear and swift medical treatment, more of America's wounded are
surviving — and returning home with serious permanent injuries.

During the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War, 76 percent of American
troops survived combat wounds. But in this century, the U.S. military's
surgical teams "have saved the lives of an unprecedented 90 percent of the
soldiers wounded in battle," the New England Journal of Medicine reported
in December.

Back in the United States, thousands of survivors are now coping with
injuries that might have been fatal in an earlier war. Many have lost
limbs or suffered other visible tragedies, but often the effects are not
obvious. The Iraq war is causing an extraordinarily high rate of traumatic
brain injury, and the damage to brain tissue is frequently permanent.

This month, the Defense Department released data showing that the official
number of U.S. troops "wounded in action" in Iraq has gone over the 11,000
mark. Notably, 95 percent of those Americans were wounded after May 1,
2003.

In a bizarre echo of President Bush's top-gun aircraft-carrier speech on
that day, the Pentagon still asserts that the U.S. casualties since then
have occurred "after the end of major combat operations." Although the
media routinely find space for reports on American deaths in Iraq, news
outlets rarely convey the magnitude of injuries.

"More corpses are en route" to the United States, former Marine Anthony
Swofford anticipated in late 2004, "and more broken bodies, shattered
psyches, damaged souls." Since authoring "Jarhead," his memoir of the Gulf
War, Swofford has continued to probe beneath the popularized war images
that drew him to enlist at the end of the 1980s.

"The romance of a combat death evaporates when combat arrives," he wrote
this winter, reflecting on photos from the funerals of seven American
soldiers who perished in Iraq.

"I wonder, then, when the men and woman whose burials we see in these
photographs lost their romantic attachment to combat, killing and death,
their own death and the deaths of others. Be certain that at some point
they entertained such fantasies. Perhaps only for a few days of basic
training; possibly, like me, until they landed in theater."

Dead soldiers, of course, can't talk to fellow Americans about that
evaporation of war's romanticized mist. But the swelling ranks of the
wounded will be heard as they try to resume their lives in the cities,
suburbs and small towns of the United States.

The human toll among veterans, extending well beyond those who were
physically harmed, includes common chronic symptoms of
post-traumatic-stress disorder, such as: extreme anxiety, sleeplessness,
nightmares, panic attacks, displaced rage and survivor's guilt. Families
and relationships are at heightened risk of falling apart.

The upsurge of newly wounded veterans would not be so potentially
explosive in political terms if the public had confidence in the rightness
of the Iraq invasion and ongoing war. When so many Americans perceive that
the war was built on a foundation of falsehoods, the war's architects are
liable to find themselves on thinner and thinner domestic ice as time goes
on. The wounded among us will be widely seen as victims whose suffering
was avoidable.

Historically, mounting U.S. casualties have not stopped most Americans
from supporting a lengthy war — if that war seemed justified. Throughout
World War II, public support remained above 75 percent. In sharp contrast,
the public's backing for the Vietnam War, with far fewer total dead and
injured, spiraled downward to 30 percent.

Even at this early stage, Iraq war veterans are gradually becoming more
outspoken. Robert Acosta, for example, is a 21-year-old former U.S. Army
specialist who re-entered civilian life in early 2004 — just six months
after losing his right hand when a grenade landed next to him in a vehicle
on a Baghdad street.

"I was there, and I'm proud of my service," he said. "But I really
questioned the war once I was in the hospital. ... I feel like we — the
guys who went in to do the job — were lied to."

Several months ago, Acosta joined the fledgling group Iraq Veterans
Against the War. He speaks with clear authenticity.

"A lot of people don't really see how the war can mess people up until
they know someone with firsthand experience," he says. "I think people
coming back wounded — or even just mentally injured after seeing what no
human being should have to see — is going to open a lot of eyes."

Founded in midsummer 2004, Iraq Veterans Against the War has expanded from
eight to 150 members while organizing forums and teach-ins around the
country and attracting some appreciable media coverage. The group's
national coordinator, Michael Hoffman, joined the Marines in 1999 and
participated in the invasion of Iraq.

"War is dirty, always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable," he says. "That is
why all these horrible things must rest on the shoulders of those leaders
who supported a war that did not have to be fought."

America's physical wounds from the current war cannot be tucked under the
national rug. And in the long run, neither can any of the psychological
pain that afflicts many combat veterans.

Bush is likely to face a growing backlash that will further reduce his
credibility — and strengthen the healthy skepticism that Americans should
utilize when the president insists it's time to go to war.


Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

_____________________________

Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of 
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. 
 If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this 
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, 
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
or you can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news  Go to that same 
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.

E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few 
days will be deleted from this list.

FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the 
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have 
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes.  I am making such material available in an effort to advance 
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, 
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair 
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.

Reply via email to