Consider this to be a bipartisan bleg. Please consider making a call, sending an email, or writing a letter to your Senators in support of S.1271 – Homecoming Enhancement Research and Oversight (HERO) Act.
As the bill now sits in committee, this is especially important if your Senator sits on the Committee on Armed Services.
To provide for a comprehensive national research effort on the physical and mental health and other readjustment needs of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and their families.
Some staggering (to me anyway) findings from the bill below the fold.
(1) The order on April 11, 2007 to extend the tour of duty for members of the Army on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom to 15 months is placing additional strains on the wellness of members of the Armed Forces and their families back home.
(2) 20,000 United States troops have been deployed at least 5 times since the war effort began. 70,000 have been deployed at 3 least times.
(3) Sixty percent of deployed members of the Armed Forces have family responsibilities.
(4) More than 500,000 children have one or more parents deployed in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) at any given time.
(5) It is estimated that more than 2,700 children in the United States have lost a parent in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
(6) Women now comprise 16 percent of the all voluntary military force, yet there is a lack of research on the psychological needs and readjustment concerns of female military personnel.
(7) Members of the Armed Forces who have screened positive for a mental health disorder were twice as likely as members who have screened negative for a mental health disorder to report concern about possible stigmatization and other barriers to accessing care. Among members of the Armed Forces who screened positive for a mental health disorder, only between 23 percent and 40 percent have sought care.
(8) As many as one quarter of all members of the Armed Forces returning from a combat zone have less visible psychological injuries.
(9) On average, more than 20 percent of wounded members of the Armed Forces have a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).
(10) More than a decade passed between the end of the conflict in Vietnam and the publication by the Federal Government of its landmark study on the readjustment needs of veterans of that conflict. The impacts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on members of the Armed Forces, former members of the Armed Forces, and their families must be rigorously researched and addressed without a wait of 10 years.
Thank you Senator Obama. I think that this is a very important bill. Please consider supporting this bill and asking your Senators to do the same.
Bravo Senator Obama
Jul 16, 2007 by OCSteveComments
Jul 16, 2007, 23:52:51 moe99 wrote:
I hope you would also give credit to Senator Webb for his bill to provide our combat troops with the same downtime as was provided to US troops fighting in WW2. Unfortunately it was killed by the Rs.
Jul 17, 2007, 02:23:31 OCSteve wrote:
Indeed I would.
Jul 17, 2007, 08:53:17 hilzoy wrote:
Thanks for this, OCSteve. A list of people on the Senate Armed Services Committee is <A HREF="http://armed-services.senat...">here.</A>
Jul 17, 2007, 10:07:48 OCSteve wrote:
A couple of the really important issues (IMO):
“Women now comprise 16 percent of the all voluntary military force, yet there is a lack of research on the psychological needs and readjustment concerns of female military personnel."
While women have certainly been involved in war and even combat in the past, the numbers were relatively small. The numbers are much larger now and women have been on the front lines as never before. I think we have a fair amount of experience with the long term effects of PTSD, but I believe that body of knowledge is based primarily on men. Will women have different responses and problems?
20% of the wounded have a Traumatic Brain Injury. The long term implications of that are just scary.
Only 23% - 40% of those who have screened positive for mental health issues have sought help. How do we remove the stigma?
“an assessment of the particular impacts of multiple deployments”
We may have to re-evaluate what we think we know about PTSD…
Jul 17, 2007, 10:10:06 OCSteve wrote:
LJ – Is there a way to turn off all comments being fully italicized so that you can italicize just what you like in a comment?
Jul 17, 2007, 19:05:53 Jesurgislac wrote:
So, Edwards for President, right?
(Currently, he's the <I>only</I> candidate who has taken a firm stance in oppositiond to the continuance of the Iraq war, and to the creepy slide into war with Iran.)
(Which is my snarky way of saying "Yes, this is terrible: so what, OCSteve, do <I>you</I> plan to do about it?" The most direct thing you can do is, in fact, to declare - to anyone who might want your vote - that you will not support anyone who isn't making plans to withdraw the troops from Iraq and then not start another unnecessary war during their term in office.)
Oh, and impeach Bush/Cheney...
Jul 17, 2007, 22:06:14 libjpn wrote:
OK, the italics are off, but I haven't found the plugin for letting you do markup in the comments.
Jul 17, 2007, 22:13:41 OCSteve wrote:
Jes: Occasionally it is enough to support something entirely on its own merits, without dragging in all possibly related baggage. The most direct thing I can do, in fact, is to support this particular bill.
Supporting a candidate who promises not to create any more wounded soldiers is a real possibility, but that doesn’t do squat to improve the lives of the thousands we already have, which is my interest in this bill.
Jul 17, 2007, 22:32:40 Jesurgislac wrote:
OCSteve: <I>Occasionally it is enough to support something entirely on its own merits, without dragging in all possibly related baggage.</I>
"Possibly" related baggage? You think it's only <I>possibly</I> related that Bush will, if left to do it, and with the full support of Republicans in both Houses, keep right on sending US soldiers to war when they're long past fit to send?
<I> The most direct thing I can do, in fact, is to support this particular bill.</I>
Which will do only limited good, if any, if the soldiers who should benefit by it are being sent back to Iraq or on to Iran. Which is what Republicans in Congress and in the Senate, and all but one of the Presidential candidates, have made clear they're quite happy to have happen.
<I>Supporting a candidate who promises not to create any more wounded soldiers is a real possibility, but that doesn’t do squat to improve the lives of the thousands we already have, which is my interest in this bill.</I>
No interest at all in <I>not</I> sending wounded soldiers back to Iraq or on to Iran, then? It seems clear to Obama (however confused he may be about voting for a fresh war with Iran) that this is part of the bill: but you think it's only "possibly" related?
Jul 17, 2007, 22:41:13 Jesurgislac wrote:
See <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.co...">Balloon Juice</a> for further discussion of this "possibly" related issue.
Jul 17, 2007, 22:53:35 OCSteve wrote:
Again Jes, I believe that this bill does and should stand on its own. I believe that the things this bill proposes to do are good and necessary in their own light. I’m appealing for bipartisan support for this bill. There are plenty of other bills and amendments on the table to accomplish the things you are talking about. If you like, I will create the blogosphere’s 50 millionth thread to rehash what has been, or what needs to be in relationship to all this. But I’m not going to do it here.