>>I disagree. The Gulf War Syndrome studies (of various qualities,
>>as you note) have been out there and made use of by activists
>>against the sanction and the proposed war on Iraq. If you do see a
>>shortcoming in this regard around you in your town or among the
>>activists you know, however, it's up to you to take an initiative
>>in correcting the problem. You, being in the Labor Party, are
>>rather well placed to begin making the correction soon, among one
>>segment of activists. Bring it up at the convention!
>
>Yes, true. I also co-edit a 5,000 circulation local monthly and the
>current front page does mention this issue in passing. While
>working on our September issue, I read a numbing quantity of left
>articles opposing a U.S. attack on Iraq, and noticed that none of
>them mentioned Gulf War Syndrome. Searching further, I found no
>mention of it since March or so in any article on Common Dreams or
>Z-net.
Look harder, and you'll find a number of them. E.g.:
***** September, 2002
Iraqi War About Politics Not Security By Oz Grimes
...Can we afford another Persian Gulf War? The first one cost $61 billion ($80 billion in constant dollars) more than half of which was paid by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. It still resulted in a US recession, even though the war lasted only a short time and American service men and women did not occupy Iraq. At this time, since no other countries are enthused about our plans to oust Saddam and conquer Iraq and so will be unwilling to help pay for military action, we taxpayers will have to pay for the war both in taxes and in government services foregone.
But the real cost of a war with Iraq will be counted in human suffering. If we cannot find it in our hearts to feel some compassion for the thousands of Iraqi civilians, especially children, who will suffer and die in even greater numbers than those killed by the sanctions, we should at least try to feel some concern for our own young servicemen who will be sent to fight this war.
Shortly after the Gulf war, veterans began to experience what came to be known as Gulf War Syndrome. Serious medical problems developed in the vets and a higher than expected number of birth defects occurred in children born to their wives. After several years of stone-walling, the Pentagon finally admitted that "thousands" of soldiers "may have been exposed to radioactive and toxic debris from American ammunition".
Now we have learned of another way American military services harm our own men. The Christian Science Monitor of August 9, 2002, reports the use of prescribed amphetamines often Dexedrine by pilots and Special Operations forces to fight fatigue, and, when effects of these stimulants wear off, sedatives to induce sleep between missions.
Use of such powerful drugs is well known to have psychological effects. "Speed "affects a user strongly, making him irritable, distrustful and irrational as well as alert and able to continue fighting for long periods of time. In April, four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight more injured when an American F-16 pilot dropped a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on an allied military exercise. The pilot's behavior was later reported to be "aggressive and paranoid".
Within the past month, soldiers newly back from Afghanistan showed both hostility and violence toward their wives and in three of four cases killed the women. The men were in special-forces units based at Fort Bragg, N.C. We can only wonder if these men were affected by drugs given them by their officers "to enhance performance". (Readers with Internet access can read the full report, titled "Military looks to drugs for battle readiness" at http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0809/p01s04-usmi.html)
During any war, we are admonished to "support our troops." Let's support them the best way possible. Let's keep them home....
<http://www.coastalpost.com/02/09/15.htm> *****
***** Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq By Anonymous, AlterNet September 9, 2002
With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.
Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.
During the open desert tank battles of '91, U.S. tanks out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks, and U.S. infantry captured tens of thousands of poorly supplied Iraqi soldiers operating without command and control from Baghdad. But in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield for Iraqi troops fighting in their hometowns. The Iraqi military can be expected to fight for each block within each city with the most ruthless means available. When faced with the impending overrun of their nation, the Iraqi military didn't hesitate to use chemical weapons against Iran.
Because of these significant differences, here are 10 reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as a costly and preventable mistake.
1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the Gulf War. While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult to treat.
2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.
3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine.
4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War. Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.
5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills "can't be ruled out" as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills remain largely unknown.
6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the Iraqi army's Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere. How can U.S. troops or Iraqi rebels be confident this won't happen again? Long oppressed by the Iraqi military, what will the civilian population do if Iraq is liberated? The American public won't support a long-term occupation and high casualties.
7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains (see "Prayer at Rumayla" by Gulf War veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles, Xlibris, 2001). Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?
8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988 ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002). Some of these former George H.W. Bush aides now work for President George W. Bush. These advisors did nothing to stop the sale of the chemical agents to Iraq, did nothing to stop the use of the agents by Iraq, and did nothing to tell the world about Iraq's crimes, even when the world learned Iraq used poison gas against civilians. These top political aides have remained silent for more than 14 years, and many refused to comment on the recent news reports.
9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral and not allow the use of German airspace? This contrasts sharply with the more than 30 nations allied with the U.S. during Desert Storm in 1991. Today, the U.S. has no Arab allies. In 1991, the U.S. forgave billions in outstanding loans owed by Egypt to buy its support. Now Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations oppose a second invasion of Iraq. If something goes wrong, where will U.S. troops retreat if Saudi Arabia won't allow U.S. troops within its borders? We must avoid another Gallipoli.
10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because VA can't even take care of current VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability claim. Many of those waiting in line are Gulf War veterans, many with unusual illnesses. According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Although the Iraqi government is a corrupt dictatorship that must eventually be removed, current proposals to remove the government by deploying hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are deeply flawed. A premature attack against Iraq, especially when the public opposes it, would be a horrible mistake. Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq for one man is not worth one more life; let's use common sense and avert a second Gulf War.
The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14067> *****
Bob Volpitto, "Play It Again, George," <http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/07/24_play.html>.
Etc.
>Sorry, that was a bit cryptic. When U.S. military employment of
>depleted uranium weapons sickens U.S. troops, it could be regarded
>as friendly fire--in the sense of your own side firing on you by
>mistake--but only if you think weapons manufacturers are on your
>side, and you think it's a mistake. It's enemy fire if you look at
>it from a class war perspective. That's my point, who's the bigger
>threat if you're a regular GI, Saddam, or your employer?
Yes, that's an angle worth bringing up every day, but for that to get a serious hearing, a sizable number of combat veterans and -- more importantly -- _soldiers on active duty themselves_, risking punishments, need to begin speaking up along this line. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>