RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Communists Were Jailed for Less: Trumpies Call for Overthrow of US Constitution Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51519"><span class="small">Juan Cole, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Friday, 04 December 2020 13:23

Cole writes: "Trump supporters and Tea Partiers have begun calling for a suspension of the US constitution to prevent Joe Biden from taking office."

Demonstrators gather during a 'Stop The Steal' rally outside of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on Saturday. (photo: Bloomberg)
Demonstrators gather during a 'Stop The Steal' rally outside of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on Saturday. (photo: Bloomberg)


Communists Were Jailed for Less: Trumpies Call for Overthrow of US Constitution

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

04 December 20

 

aitlin Dickson at Yahoo News reports that Trump supporters and Tea Partiers have begun calling for a suspension of the US constitution to prevent Joe Biden from taking office.

The only way to parse “suspension” of the constitution is its temporary overthrow. Moreover, they are calling for the use of force (“martial law”) toward that aim. They are also using diction such as the threat of civil war. Since nobody but them is talking about civil war, I take it they are envisioning firing off the AR-15s they have stockpiled.

Should they go to jail?

Other people did, for much less. Jessie DeLauder explains that in 1952 seven Seattle citizens were abruptly arrested by the FBI and charged not only with being members of the Communist Party but of therefore seeking to overthrow the constitution of the United States. They were charged under the 1940 Smith Act, passed in the shadow of WW II, which threatened with condign punishment those who

“knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

Among the seven, DeLauder says, “Karley Larsen had, for seventeen consecutive years, held the position of the first vice-president of the International Woodworkers Union of Western Washington.” She was arrested at a union meeting in Oregon. Paul Bowen, an African-American veteran, trade unionist and civil rights activist, was arrested just outside Seattle.

As the seven went blue in the face asserting to the judge, they did not in fact advocate the violent overthrow of the US constitution, just because they belonged to the Communist Party.

They were nevertheless convicted, fined and sentenced to five years in jail for throught crimes. One committed suicide. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the convictions.

Given this success, The FBI went on an arrest spree, bringing cases all over the country. Only in 1957 did the Supreme Court finally return to its senses and rule that you can’t be imprisoned for your thoughts, only for your actions.

The Smith Act is still on the books, and I don’t think anyone who believes in human rights would ever want to see it deployed again. It should be repealed. Who knows, our present Supreme Court may be as conservative as the one who upheld the conviction of prisoners of conscience.

But, I’m just saying that there is a double standard in the United States. The far right literally gets away with murder, and no one is talking about locking up the Trump crazies for demanding the overthrow of the US constitution. If they called themselves socialists or if they weren’t white, though, they might well have started being investigated by now.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Congress Is Deadlocked on Covid Relief but Came Together to Fund the Pentagon for $740 Billion Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45458"><span class="small">Sarah Lazare, In These Times</span></a>   
Friday, 04 December 2020 13:23

Lazare writes: "There is always money for war."

Hospital staff look on as the United States Navy Blue Angels pass over Medical City Dallas on May 06, 2020, in Dallas, Texas. (photo: Tom Pennington/Getty)
Hospital staff look on as the United States Navy Blue Angels pass over Medical City Dallas on May 06, 2020, in Dallas, Texas. (photo: Tom Pennington/Getty)


Congress Is Deadlocked on Covid Relief but Came Together to Fund the Pentagon for $740 Billion

By Sarah Lazare, In These Times

04 December 20


There is always money for war.

he annu­al approval of the gar­gan­tu­an U.S. mil­i­tary bud­get is one of the most reli­able rit­u­als in Con­gress. It is so ordi­nary and over­whelm­ing­ly bipar­ti­san, it’s bare­ly con­sid­ered news­wor­thy, and few out­lets fol­low the details of exact­ly how much the gov­ern­ment is allo­cat­ing to a nuclear weapons buildup, or deploy­ments to the Asia Pacif­ic, or the steady creep of U.S. mil­i­tary bases across the con­ti­nent of Africa. Even under Pres­i­dent Trump, when the Demo­c­ra­t­ic lead­er­ship claims to have struck a more con­fronta­tion­al pos­ture, those same lead­ers have repeat­ed­ly hand­ed him bloat­ed mil­i­tary bud­gets, as we saw Wednes­day with Con­gress’ bicam­er­al approval of a rough­ly $740 bil­lion mil­i­tary bud­get for 2021.

It is real­ly only Trump’s threats to veto the Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act (NDAA), most recent­ly over his objec­tions to some lia­bil­i­ty pro­tec­tions for social media com­pa­nies, that cut through the noise. When that does hap­pen, the head­lines often look like this one from ABC News: “Trump’s veto threat on must-pass defense bill meets GOP resis­tance.” (Oth­er­wise “objec­tive” ABC News has no prob­lem ran­dom­ly edi­to­ri­al­iz­ing about the essen­tial­ness of the Pen­ta­gon bud­get. A search of ABC News’ archives reveals no such “must-pass” mod­i­fi­er for child health­care, hous­ing relief or Covid-relat­ed relief.)

But this is no ordi­nary year. As Con­gress races to pass the NDAA for 2021, it does so in a coun­try that is hurtling toward months that could be among “the most dif­fi­cult in the pub­lic health his­to­ry of this nation,” accord­ing to Dr. Robert Red­field, the direc­tor of the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion. Along with this health cri­sis, whose scale in the Unit­ed States was entire­ly pre­ventable, comes eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion: Lines for food banks are stretch­ing for miles and, accord­ing to one study, one in six peo­ple is food inse­cure. As of Sep­tem­ber, one in six adults said they live in a house that’s behind on rent.

The near­ly $3 tril­lion in stim­u­lus spend­ing so far has come from bills passed in March and April, includ­ing the CARES Act, which togeth­er com­bined cor­po­rate bailouts and tax breaks for the wealthy with mea­sures that, while insuf­fi­cient, pro­vid­ed at least some gen­uine relief, includ­ing expand­ed unem­ploy­ment insur­ance and $1,200 checks. But with­out a new relief pack­age, rough­ly 12 mil­lion peo­ple are poised to lose their unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits at the end of this year, and fed­er­al pro­tec­tions against evic­tions (which have been gross­ly insuf­fi­cient and sig­nif­i­cant­ly walked back) and defer­ment of stu­dent loan pay­ments are also set to expire. While there are some reports of renewed dis­cus­sion of Covid relief, there has been lit­tle mean­ing­ful move­ment, and there’s a good chance that stalled nego­ti­a­tions will bring unfath­omable lev­els of eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion to tens of mil­lions of people.

It is worth tak­ing a moment to con­trast this stale­mate over coro­n­avirus relief with bipar­ti­san sup­port for the U.S. war machine.

The Unit­ed States has by far the biggest mil­i­tary bud­get on the plan­et, spend­ing more than the next 10 coun­tries com­bined. There is no indi­ca­tion that U.S. law­mak­ers plan to reverse this trend any­time soon: For six con­sec­u­tive years the mil­i­tary bud­get has either increased or stayed rough­ly the same, tak­ing infla­tion into account. As the Nation­al Pri­or­i­ties Project point­ed out in June, the mil­i­tary bud­get in 2019 account­ed for 53% of the fed­er­al dis­cre­tionary bud­get. How­ev­er, if you con­sid­er the “mil­i­ta­rized bud­get,” includ­ing “vet­er­ans’ affairs, home­land secu­ri­ty, and law enforce­ment and incar­cer­a­tion,” this num­ber jumps to 64.5% of the fed­er­al dis­cre­tionary bud­get. But actu­al U.S. spend­ing on wars is far greater. Writ­ers Mandy Smith­berg­er and William Har­tung dis­cussed last year, “There are at least 10 sep­a­rate pots of mon­ey ded­i­cat­ed to fight­ing wars, prepar­ing for yet more wars, and deal­ing with the con­se­quences of wars already fought.” As a result, the cost of war eas­i­ly exceeds $1 tril­lion per year, Smith­berg­er and Har­tung conclude.

Being expen­sive in itself is not grounds for objec­tion: Some real­ly good things that we des­per­ate­ly need are expen­sive, like pay­ing peo­ple to stay home so that they can sur­vive the pan­dem­ic. The war bud­get is bad because the U.S. mil­i­tarism, aggres­sion and med­dling that it finances are deeply harm­ful?—?among the most harm­ful forces on Earth. The Unit­ed States has rough­ly 800 mil­i­tary bases around the world, under­min­ing local self-deter­mi­na­tion, emit­ting envi­ron­men­tal poi­son and car­bon emis­sions, and bring­ing increased risk of sex­u­al assault. The so-called “War on Ter­ror” has turned the whole plan­et into a U.S. bat­tle­field, and now the Unit­ed States is plan­ning to inten­si­fy its mil­i­ta­riza­tion of the Asia-Pacif­ic region in order to esca­late against Chi­na, which the cur­rent NDAA reflects, with bipar­ti­san sup­port. As the world suf­fered from the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic, the Unit­ed States con­tin­ued its sup­port for bomb­ings in Yemen, ratch­eted up bru­tal sanc­tions regimes, and now the Trump admin­is­tra­tion is, once again, engag­ing in dan­ger­ous brinkman­ship with Iran, no doubt mak­ing the pan­dem­ic far worse for those caught in U.S. crosshairs.

As the pan­dem­ic was rag­ing, Con­gress had no prob­lem pass­ing leg­is­la­tion to con­tin­ue U.S. mil­i­tary vio­lence. The Sen­ate ver­sion of the NDAA passed on July 23 in a vote of 86?–?14, while the House ver­sion was approved July 21 by 295?–?125. This defense bill was then approved Decem­ber 2 by both cham­bers of Congress.

To be fair, some have tried to use the pan­dem­ic to call for decreas­ing the mil­i­tary bud­get. In July, a pro­pos­al in both the House and the Sen­ate to cut the mil­i­tary bud­get by 10% (or $74 bil­lion), and divert those funds to social pro­grams, failed. This pro­posed cut is a small frac­tion of what’s need­ed to make a dent in the harm­ful U.S. mil­i­tary appa­ra­tus. Yet, accord­ing to the Nation­al Pri­or­i­ties Project, even the $74 bil­lion this pro­pos­al would have divert­ed could have fund­ed 44 times as many coro­n­avirus tests at the time, or pro­vid­ed hous­ing for the over half a mil­lion home­less peo­ple in the country.

While entire­ly rou­tine at this point, it’s use­ful to high­light on the eve of yet anoth­er mas­sive Pen­ta­gon hand­out how the bud­get for war could instead go toward life-pre­serv­ing social goods. This is use­ful, not to buy into aus­ter­i­ty notions of scarci­ty, but sim­ply to show the pro­found immoral­i­ty of where our pub­lic resources go. When it comes to mil­i­tary spend­ing, the sky is the lim­it. Space Force? Sure. Rough­ly $21.9 bil­lion for nuclear weapons pro­grams? No prob­lem. But when it comes to keep­ing peo­ple alive, U.S. polit­i­cal imag­i­na­tion is sig­nif­i­cant­ly more con­strained. Right off the bat in March, Demo­c­ra­t­ic leader Rep. Nan­cy Pelosi (Calif.) shot down uni­ver­sal, robust cash pay­ments to keep peo­ple afloat, even as high-pro­file fig­ures like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I?Vt.) and Rep. Rashi­da Tlaib (D?Mich.) called for such measures.

This is not to say that Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats are equal­ly to blame for the present impasse. As Hadas Thi­er wrote for In These Times in Octo­ber, “The lion’s share of respon­si­bil­i­ty for failed nego­ti­a­tions sure­ly lays at the Repub­li­cans’ door, but the real­i­ty is that des­per­ate­ly need­ed eco­nom­ic relief is being treat­ed as a polit­i­cal foot­ball on all sides.” Rather, we should not allow bipar­ti­san agree­ment on mil­i­tary spend­ing to sim­ply fade into the back­ground, as an unre­mark­able and immutable fact of U.S. pol­i­tics. That we can find the mon­ey for war but not for coro­n­avirus relief expos­es the moral rot at the cen­ter of U.S. pol­i­tics, a rot that must be dug out and expunged if we are to get through this crisis.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Naked Corruption of Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39192"><span class="small">Ryan Cooper, The Week</span></a>   
Friday, 04 December 2020 12:18

Cooper writes: "Control of the United States Senate hinges on two January 5 runoff elections in Georgia, where incumbent Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are facing Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock respectively."

Senators Kelly Loeffler, left, and David Perdue issued a joint statement calling for the resignation of Georgia's secretary of state and condemning the election as an 'embarrassment.' (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
Senators Kelly Loeffler, left, and David Perdue issued a joint statement calling for the resignation of Georgia's secretary of state and condemning the election as an 'embarrassment.' (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


The Naked Corruption of Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue

By Ryan Cooper, The Week

04 December 20

 

ontrol of the United States Senate hinges on two January 5 runoff elections in Georgia, where incumbent Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are facing Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock respectively. Most immediately, the race is a contest over whether President-elect Joe Biden and the Democratic Party will be able to govern — especially by passing another big coronavirus rescue package.

However, Loeffler and Perdue are also excellent examples of what interests the Republican Party serves — namely, the ultra-rich, which includes both Loeffler and Perdue personally. These are two people who were rich before they got into politics, and leveraged their power as senators to make themselves even more rich — by profiteering off the pandemic. It is government of, by, and for the top 0.1 percent.

Let me consider their cases in turn. David Perdue is a longtime businessman who served as CEO of Dollar General in the mid-2000s, where he worked diligently to source more products from China. According to his financial disclosures, he is worth between $15 million and $43 million.

As Michela Tindera writes at Forbes, Kelly Loeffler and her husband Jeffrey Sprecher own a big stake in International Exchange, a financial clearinghouse company that Sprecher founded and where he remains CEO and chairman. (That company also owns the New York Stock Exchange, where Sprecher is again chairman.) After closely examining Loeffler's financial disclosure forms and other information, Tindera estimates that the couple is worth at least $800 million, and likely over $1 billion — or roughly quadruple the wealth of the second-richest member of Congress, Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

Here's how the pandemic profiteering worked. On January 24, there was a private all-Senate briefing about the looming disaster — long before there was a broad public understanding that the U.S. was going to get slammed by COVID-19. Immediately afterward, both Loeffler and Perdue started trading strategic stocks. As The Daily Beast reported at the time, Loeffler executed 29 transactions valued between $1.275 and $3.1 million in the following days before the market crashed, almost all of them sales — one exception was a purchase of Citrix, which sells teleworking software. (Also, Loeffler recently violated the legal prohibition on soliciting campaign funds in a Senate office building.)

Perdue made a similar number of trades, but bought more than Loeffler — in particular, an investment of up to $850,000 in DuPont, which manufactures personal protective equipment. And as The Associated Press reports, in late January he sold between $1 million and $5 million in shares of Cardlytics, a financial technology firm, at $86 per share. Then, when the market had bottomed out in March, he snapped up between $200,000 and $500,000 of Cardlytics shares at $30 apiece; since then the share price has shot back up to $121. Nice tidy little profit to counterbalance the 270,000 dead Americans. (The Daily Beast also reports that in 2019, Perdue bought up shares of a submarine parts manufacturer before voting to give the company a lucrative contract, then sold it for another handsome profit.)

When reports of these trades first came out, both Loeffler and Perdue insisted they had nothing to do personally with the moves. "I have never used any confidential information I received while performing my Senate duties as a means of making a private profit ... professionals buy and sell stocks on our behalf," wrote Loeffler in an April 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Perdue told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that advisers made his investment decisions on their own.

In the first place, candidates not taking direct control of their stock trades does not actually remove the conflict of interest. If you are a senator, and you hire a bunch of asset managers to look after your investments without any kind of blind trust, you still know what those investments are. You can make decisions knowing that your Goldman Sachs lackeys will make the profit-maximizing move in response — which is the best-case scenario of what happened here.

But realistically speaking, it is virtually impossible to believe that all these trades had nothing to do with the two senators. Are we really to believe it was a coincidence that these asset managers started making "there is a pandemic coming" trades the very same day the two were receiving classified briefings on the disaster? Come on. Indeed, The New York Times recently reported that Perdue was lying with his blanket denial — he did directly instruct his manager to sell the Cardlytics shares after receiving a cryptic email mentioning "upcoming changes" from the company's then-CEO. (Perdue and Loeffler have been cleared of legal wrongdoing by the Department of Justice, but given that Attorney General Barr is a shameless Trump stooge, that is hardly reassuring.)

Since then, both Perdue and Loeffler have largely downplayed the pandemic. Unlike Ossoff and Warnock, both have been holding large, in-person rallies. In July, both Loeffler and Perdue came out against extending the boost to unemployment insurance in the CARES Act, and since then neither have answered questions about further economic rescue measures from Atlanta Magazine. Instead, since the election they have amplified Trump's flagrant lies that Georgia's Republican governor and secretary of state somehow helped Joe Biden steal the election there.

Over the last decade or so, there has been a long discussion of why Democrats are bleeding votes in rural areas (precisely where Republicans run up huge margins in Georgia). And on one level it's an important debate — there is good evidence that as Democrats embraced austerity, deregulation, and free trade that harmed such places, it hurt their vote share.

But on another level, it is frankly staggering that the Republican Party has swooped in to replace them. The Democrats may not be much of a friend to the working class or rural farmers, but Republicans are straight-up picking their pockets. If you want a couple senators to govern solely on behalf of their massive asset portfolio while leaving everyone else twisting in the wind, vote Perdue and Loeffler.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Will Biden Deal With Republican Sabotage? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51503"><span class="small">Paul Krugman, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 04 December 2020 09:18

Krugman writes: "When Joe Biden is inaugurated, he will immediately be confronted with an unprecedented challenge - and I don't mean the pandemic, although Covid-19 will almost surely be killing thousands of Americans every day. I mean, instead, that he'll be the first modern U.S. president trying to govern in the face of an opposition that refuses to accept his legitimacy."

Supporters of President Donald Trump hold 'Stop the Steal' signs as they stand outside of the Clark County Elections Department in Nevada on November 7. (photo: Wong Maye/AP)
Supporters of President Donald Trump hold 'Stop the Steal' signs as they stand outside of the Clark County Elections Department in Nevada on November 7. (photo: Wong Maye/AP)


How Will Biden Deal With Republican Sabotage?

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

04 December 20


He needs to make the G.O.P. pay a price for obstruction.

hen Joe Biden is inaugurated, he will immediately be confronted with an unprecedented challenge — and I don’t mean the pandemic, although Covid-19 will almost surely be killing thousands of Americans every day. I mean, instead, that he’ll be the first modern U.S. president trying to govern in the face of an opposition that refuses to accept his legitimacy. And no, Democrats by and large were not claiming Donald Trump was illegitimate, just that he was incompetent and dangerous.

It goes without saying that Donald Trump, whose conspiracy theories are getting wilder and wilder, will never concede, and that millions of his followers will always believe — or at least say they believe — that the election was stolen.

Most Republicans in Congress certainly know this is a lie, although even on Capitol Hill there are a lot more crazy than we’d like to imagine. But it doesn’t matter; they still won’t accept that Biden has any legitimacy, even though he won the popular vote by a large margin.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Ready or Not, Here They Come: A Military Spouse's Perspective on Bringing the Troops Home From Afghanistan and Iraq Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52316"><span class="small">Andrea Mazzarino, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Friday, 04 December 2020 09:18

Mazzarino writes: "When it comes to honoring active-duty troops and veterans of this country's forever wars, we Americans have proven big on symbolic gestures, but small on action."

U.S. soldier. (photo: Getty)
U.S. soldier. (photo: Getty)


Ready or Not, Here They Come: A Military Spouse's Perspective on Bringing the Troops Home From Afghanistan and Iraq

By Andrea Mazzarino, TomDispatch

04 December 20

 


Nineteen years ago, the administration of George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. And, yes, you won’t be shocked to learn that the Taliban is stronger now than at any time since that moment. Though U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan has been shrinking, thanks to the president who swore he would end America’s forever wars but didn’t, it still remains a factor there as does American air power (and Joe Biden has favored keeping U.S. counterterrorism forces in that country).

Of course, it’s now more than 17 years since the Bush administration invaded Iraq, something its top officials were intent on doing from the early moments after 9/11, even though their nemesis Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda. As Donald Trump prepares to depart the White House in a storm of accusations of election fraud, he’ll leave several thousand U.S. soldiers in Iraq, too. And there are 700 more in Somalia, where the U.S. has been fighting on and off for 27 years, many of whom may be withdrawn before the new administration takes over (though not the local CIA contingent, one of whom died there recently). And the list just keeps on going, including those 900 American soldiers left in Syria, even though the president’s generals falsely promised to withdraw 700 of them (a move criticized by Joe Biden).

Never in history, it might be said, has a great power at the height of its military strength been quite so unable to impress its will on the countries and peoples it targeted.

And yet, sooner or later, withdrawn or not, American troops do come home, often in the deepest sort of trouble. Once here, they are eternally “thanked” and then generally forgotten, though not by TomDispatch regular, co-founder of Brown University’s Costs of War Project, and military spouse Andrea Mazzarino who reminds us today that, while U.S. taxpayer dollars flow in a profligate fashion into the Pentagon and the major arms makers in this country, America’s soldiers are essentially left in the lurch. Our forever wars, in other words, are a matter of forever funding when it comes to those at the top and underfunding when it comes to those who “volunteer” to fight them.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch



y the end of this year, the White House will reportedly have finally brought home a third of the 7,500 troops still stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq (against the advice of President Trump’s own military leaders). While there have been stories galore about the global security implications of this plan, there has been almost no discussion at all about where those 2,700 or so troops who have served in this country’s endless wars will settle once their feet touch U.S. soil (assuming, that is, that they aren’t just moved to less controversial garrisons elsewhere in the Greater Middle East), no less who’s likely to provide them with badly needed financial, logistical, and emotional support as they age.

When it comes to honoring active-duty troops and veterans of this country’s forever wars, we Americans have proven big on symbolic gestures, but small on action. Former First Lady Michelle Obama’s organization, Joining Forces, was a short-lived but notable exception: its advocacy and awareness-raising led dozens of companies to commit to hiring more veterans. Unfortunately, those efforts proved limited in scope and didn’t last long.

Zoom out to the rest of America and you’ll find yellow-ribbon bumper stickers on gas-guzzling SUVs galore; tons of “support our troops” Facebook memes on both Veterans Day and Memorial Day regularly featuring (at least before the pandemic struck big time) young, attractive heterosexual families hugging at reunions; and there is invariably a chorus of “thank you for your service” when a veteran or active-duty soldier appears in public.

In practical terms, though, this adds up to nothing. Bumper stickers don’t watch soldiers’ kids while they’re gone, nor do they transport those troops to competent, affordable specialists to meet their health and vocational needs when they return from battle. Memes don’t power vets through decades of rehabilitation from traumatic brain injuries, limbs blown off by homemade explosives, depression, anxiety, and grief for comrades lost.

I’m the spouse of a U.S. naval officer. My husband has served on two different submarines and in three military policymaking positions over the course of our decade together. We’ve had to move around the country four times (an exceedingly modest number compared with most military families we know). We have dual incomes, as well as extended family and friends with the means to support us with care for our two young children and help us with the extra expenses when that uprooting moment arrives every two or three years. We have self-advocacy skills and the resources necessary to find the best possible health providers to help us weather the strain that goes with the relentless pace of post-9/11 military life.

And yet I feel I can speak for other military families who have so much less for one reason: I’ve dedicated much of my career to research and advocacy on behalf of people affected by the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve focused my attention, in particular, on the vast loss of life, both abroad and at home, caused by those wars, on decimated and depleted healthcare systems (including our own), and on the burdens borne by the families of soldiers who have to struggle to deal with the needs of those who return.

Troops from our current wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere across the Greater Middle East and Africa are, in certain ways, unique compared to earlier generations of American military personnel. More than half of them have deployed more than once to those battle zones -- often numerous times. Over a million of them now have disability claims with the Veterans Affairs Department and far more disabled veterans than in the past have chronic injuries and illnesses that they will live with, not die from. Among troops like my spouse who, as a naval officer, has never deployed to Iraqi or Afghan soil, days have grown longer and more stressful due to a distinctly overstretched military that often lacks the up-to-date equipment to work safely.

And mind you, the costs of caring for the soldiers who have been deployed in our never-ending wars won’t peak for another 30 to 40 years, as they age, and the government isn’t faintly ready to meet the expenses that will be involved.

Homecoming

And mind you, the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs are even less prepared to care for the families of their troops and veterans, those most likely to be tasked with their round-the-clock care.

Among the many grim possibilities from my own experience and the stories I’ve been told as an advocate over the years by military veterans, military spouses, and military children, let me try to paint just one picture of what it’s like when a member of that military returns home from deployment: Imagine your spouse suddenly walking through the door after months away. His face is a greenish hue from fatigue and fear. He may tell you some horror story about some set of incidents that occurred while he was deployed and indicate that he fears, given his state, he might even be out of a job soon. You think about the work you cut back on in the months since he left because you couldn’t handle the 24/7 demands of caring for confused children who had stopped sleeping. What will you do to support the family if his worst fears come to pass?

You need to remind him that, while he’s been rattling on, there are children present whom he has yet to greet. He hugs them now, his face a combination of love and lack-of-recognition (given how they’ve grown in the months since he’s been gone). The kids’ facial expressions are a mirror image of his.

You do your best to catch him up on the changes that have taken place in his absence: the kids’ latest developments, your new work schedule, the need for more childcare support, and the problems of your extended family (including the terminal illness of a family member).

Family or friends want to swoop in and take the kids so the two of you can get away, yet after months of his silence, you’re feeling too confused to want that yet. What’s more, your own hard-earned role as head of the household is suddenly about to be subsumed by his needs. (After all, he’s used to telling others what to do.)

You try to call other spouses who were your lifeline while all your husbands were deployed together, but they’re as stressed out and preoccupied as you are. Even the other commanders’ wives are, like you, up far too often at night as their spouses accept calls about drunk driving, partner violence, suicide threats, and child abuse within the stressed-out command.

Your unnerved husband is helping deal with such events, counseling those still on duty, and you’re counseling him. One night, he tells you that part of the reason for his stress is the things he was asked to do by his war-traumatized commander while he was deployed. These stories keep you awake at night.

You suggest he see a mental health professional. After all, the base has licensed psychologists and psychiatrists on staff, ready to help. He reminds you that the decision to seek care is not private in the military and the stigma among those handling his promotions could cost him his career.

So you look for mental-health assistance yourself to deal with the stress and grief over your changed relationship with your spouse. The lone practitioner within 45 miles who accepts military insurance tells you that, to receive care, you must sign a contract accepting that you can be hospitalized at his discretion “because military spouses go psychotic during their husband’s deployments.” You walk away.

Childcare support of some kind is needed more than ever now that your spouse is in such distress. Because you moved posts recently by military order, the Navy tells you that you’re at the back of the local line for financial childcare assistance. You’re in your own hell on earth and in that you’re typical of so many other military spouses.

Perspectives on Service From a Coastal Elite

And you also turn your gaze to the citizenry of this country that, in the world of the “All Volunteer” military, generally ignores us. Before I became a military spouse, I grew up in an affluent part of New Jersey. I remember how war veterans were ignored or even mocked (including by me). In the 1990s, I used to vacation at the Jersey shore and sometimes, from the front porch of our house, my family and I would catch a glimpse of a middle-aged man in military uniform, marching like a metronome up and down the island’s main boulevard. The glazed, far-off look on his face with its telltale ruddiness signaled, I know now, someone who probably drank too much, too often. Back then, we would just refer to him as “the soldier” when he passed and laugh at him, once safely out of earshot.

Of course, he was undoubtedly suffering from some form of mental illness without the sort of care that might have helped him make sense of things. My family and I had no idea that it was normal for war-traumatized soldiers to have difficulty distinguishing the past from the present, that it wouldn’t have been strange for him to see lines of summertime beach traffic and think “convoy” or hear a car engine backfire and think “sniper!"

Later, when I was living in San Francisco, a friend who worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development told me about a veteran of the Afghan War, on leave between deployments, who called their office to request that a military tent village be set up in a popular city park to house homeless and mentally ill veterans like himself. My friend and I laughed about that over drinks, imagining the eyesore of an instant military base suddenly arising in the middle of a popular San Francisco tourist destination.

Some 15 years later, I think: how appropriate it would have been to remind Americans having fun of just what they were invariably missing -- their military and the forever wars that go with them that all of us pay for endlessly but ignore. Maybe it finally is time to create spaces meant for U.S. troops and veterans right in the middle of everything.

A Task List

President-elect Biden, I’m hoping against hope that you’ll read these thoughts of mine and take steps to support such priorities when you take office, so that our soldiers and our veterans don’t find themselves in ever deeper holes as their service ends:

1. Give those who serve and military veterans, as well as their families, real choices about where to go to get healthcare, whether primary care, physical therapy, specialized surgery, psychological therapy, or dental care. The Veterans Choice Program, first rolled out in 2014, should have been a decent start in expanding that sort of access, but in practice few providers have received authorization to participate because of low reimbursement rates and excessive wait times for approval and reimbursement. Anything your administration could do, including ensuring that there’s just one less form to fill out or a few more dollars in reimbursement, would make a difference.

2. Sponsor large-scale studies on the health of military spouses and children. Evidence of the effects of military life on such families is scattered at best, but doesn’t look good, particularly during and immediately after deployments. The needs of spouses and children who deal with veterans for healthcare, vocational training, and protection from family violence appear high and badly unmet.

3. Advocate making training on the issues faced by our troops and their families central to continuing education requirements among healthcare providers and the staff supporting them, especially the military insurance contractors who are the gatekeepers to care. Urge such providers to place veterans and their families first in line. Make sure therapists, including those focused on children and adolescents, know about the special challenges faced by military kids after parents return. Fund and support off-base family therapy for soldiers and their families, since Department of Defense therapists too often prioritize the needs of the soldier or of the mission above the needs of the family.

4. Teach everyone to stop “thanking” the troops for their service, which effectively ends any conversation instead of beginning one. Teach them instead to ask about what service in the U.S. military in the forever-war era is really like. Believe me, that would start a conversation that wouldn’t end soon.

5. Remove needless barriers to military families receiving childcare, whether they’re active duty and awaiting their next assignment or settling for good in communities where they’ll begin their lives as civilians.

Nothing About Us Without Us

In all such things, take your cues from soldiers, veterans, and their families. Nationally, what about creating a presidential commission that represents such groups in equal measure and in as diverse a way as possible? Let it investigate violations of the rights of military personnel and their families when it comes to health and safety in military commands and on bases across the country and around the world.

Often when I talk about changes like these, I’m met with skeptical looks from family members and friends. Where will we get the money for such changes, since we’re already reimbursing providers at higher rates for accepting military insurance?

The striking thing is that there’s no ceiling when it comes to putting money into disastrous weapons systems, the U.S. nuclear arsenal, or the Pentagon generally. But when it comes to putting money into us, it’s another matter entirely.

How about, as a start, cutting down on waste and fraud? Money that could have done us some good has disappeared into gas stations in the middle of nowhere and other corrupt construction projects in our distant war zones. Tens of millions of dollars or more have been lost to waste and fraud in some of those unfinished foreign reconstruction projects. As economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier has pointed out, U.S. federal defense spending accounts for more than half of all of our government’s discretionary spending, with piles of taxpayer dollars going to expensive contractors who provide services like cleaning, meals, and security guards on bases in those same war zones. Instead of spending $100 more on a single bag of laundry in Iraq, how about spending it on a therapy session for a veteran struggling with postwar trauma here at home?

It’s long past time to end America’s fruitless post-9/11 wars. But if we don’t start re-examining our basic priorities, bringing our troops “home” will just create a new crisis, involving what, in the long run, will be millions of sick, grieving, and injured Americans who will lack the safety net of adequate healthcare.

Please remember, President-elect Biden: war, even failed war, shouldn’t be about sacrifice by the military alone but by all of us.



Andrea Mazzarino, a TomDispatch regular, co-founded Brown University’s Costs of War Project. She has held various clinical, research, and advocacy positions, including at a Veterans Affairs PTSD Outpatient Clinic, with Human Rights Watch, and at a community mental health agency. She is the co-editor of War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 Next > End >>

Page 270 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN