Iraq: Invading a Toxic Kill Zone

By Robert L. McMahon

As everyone knows, the Persian Gulf War in 1991 ended after only a 100-hour ground campaign. Our total official battle deaths were less than 150 and our wounded, thankfully, less than 500.

But what is truly stunning is that today we have nearly 160,000 veterans being awarded Department of Veterans Affairs health benefits that are officially 'service related' to their Gulf War experiences.

Let's put this 160,000 number into historical perspective. The Korean War was fought for 37 months, but Congress extended the "official Korean War era" by two years due to continued 'combat action' after the truce to 1955. Therefore, there were 6.8 million eligible Americans to claim benefits.

The actual Korean conflict saw over 33,000 Americans killed in combat, over 10,000 more die as a result of wounds, disease and accidents. Our combat wounded totalled nearly 104,000. On a monthly basis, Korea generated 4,257 American casualties.

Today, of the 2.3 million total American veterans receiving 'service connected' compensation, 172,600 are Korean War-era veterans. That's only 13,000 more than the Gulf War veterans and the average age of a Korean veteran today is 69 years old! The severity of the Gulf War Illness issue cannot be denied.

The overriding issue is that Iraq constituted one of the most toxic battlefields our armed forces ever fought in. And this occurred despite the fact that that Saddam Hussein never fired a chemical or biological round at us - a point formally confirmed by both the CIA and the U.N. weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) in the 1990s. We did this to ourselves during our hasty and poorly organized destruction of Iraqi weapons after the cease-fire.

The amount and types of toxic material that our troops were exposed to is genuinely frightening: They include 640,000 pounds of depleted uranium munitions, dubious anthrax vaccines, sarin and cyclo-sarin from the destruction of Iraqi weapons stores, emissions from the Kuwaiti oil well fires, squalene additives in vaccines to accelerate their effectiveness, botulism vaccines, and a litany of regional diseases and parasites the DoD never researched and never tracked.

Another truly frightening aspect is that for seven years after the war, the U.S. government dismissed these veterans as whiners who were simply looking for a handout. Hardly no one listened and even fewer seemed to care.

We here at sftt.us have partnered with the National Gulf War Resource Center to call attention to the unresolved issue of Gulf War Illness and the need for better treatment of those tens of thousands of veterans who were sickened after coming home from war in 1991, and our founder and Senior Military Columnist, Col. David Hackworth, has been calling attention to the situation during his numerous appearances on national television. On O'Reilly last week Col. Hackworth directed people to our website home page where you can find a Fact Sheet we compiled in conjunction with the National Gulf War Resource Center.

It remains critical that we ask the right questions now as to whether those who may be ordered back into Iraq are adequately prepared for the threat. Steve Robinson, Executive Director for the NGWRC, warns that the effectiveness of current NBC protective gear must be reviewed before we fight another war against Iraq. Can our troops really wear their protective gear for three sustained days of chemical warfare if Saddam chooses to unleash his arsenal? The U.S. government has already told Saddam that our goal is to topple him from power and try him - if we don't kill him first. What possible deterrent will keep him from using his WMD arsenal in the final stage of his military defeat?

Our men and women in uniform today deserve far better treatment than their comrades of a decade ago.

Robert L. McMahon is President of sftt.us. He can be reached at rmcmahon1@rcn.com.

Table of Contents

Iraqi ‘Regime Change’ Is a Family Affair

By Christian M. Weber

In my 32 years, I have come to realize that there have been three great fallacies perpetrated upon my generation: that Jane Fonda has become a conservative, that if the glove does not fit you must acquit, and – most recently – that a regime change in Iraq may not be necessary.

In August 2002, Qatari foreign Minister Hamad al-Thani attempted in vain to encourage Saddam Hussein to relinquish power in a bid to avert a U.S. military attack.

A month later, on Sept. 16, Saddam orchestrated his own “September surprise” by announcing that he unconditionally accepted the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.Surprisingly, this seemed an apt solution to many of his Persian Gulf neighbors, members of the U.N. Security Council, and even a number of our own politicians, despite the confirmed failure of past weapons inspections.

Saddam’s latest ploy is simply not acceptable. Whether by diplomacy, insurgency or military action, the entire Iraqi regime must be removed from power.

The first Persian Gulf War left in its wake 293 dead Americans and the lingering effects of debilitating ailments in almost 200,000 veterans. If we are again to send our sons and daughters into Iraq, we have to make sure it is for the last time. That requires that any exit strategy must include the complete removal of the current villainous regime. And in Iraq tyranny is a family affair.

Iraq is still largely a land of tribal loyalties. Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti belongs to the al-Khatab clan of the Al Bu Nasir tribe from the town of Tikrit, 100 miles northwest of Baghdad on the Tigris River, ironically the birthplace of the Muslim hero, Saladin.

Saddam has largely structured his government in four concentric circles of power.The structure is designed to ensure loyalty, secrecy and to prevent opposition.

His inner circle is almost exclusively composed of members of his direct family and their immediate relatives. They control the primary functions of the government and, most importantly, the security and intelligence apparatus

The next circle of highly sensitive positions are entrusted only to members of his local al-Katab clan, including command of the “presidential” and “sovereign” sites which denied access to weapons inspectors and bodyguard duties for Hussein and his key officials.

The third circle is recruited primarily from the Al Bu Nasir tribe and its 15 affiliated tribes. Recruits from these tribal grounds comprise Hussein’s elite paramilitary units such as the Special Security Organization and senior positions within the Republican Guard.

The remaining circle of Hussein’s regime comprises long-term loyal members of the ruling Ba’ath filling who fill key posts on the National Security Council and Revolutionary Command Council.

Hussein’s eldest son and once heir-apparent, Uday, controls all forms of media in Iraq. He has publicly called for light arms and mortars to be sent to Palestinian terrorists, as he believes the United States will not be able to foment a coalition against Iraq as long as fighting continues in Israel.

Uday is known to maintain a private torture chamber, the Red Room, in the Tikrit area where he has routinely tortured and murdered dissidents and even members of the Iraqi soccer team for the “crime” of poor performance during matches. A prolific and unabashed serial rapist, Uday narrowly survived an assassination attempt by enraged Iraqi civilians in 1996. His sheer barbarism and unpredictability contributed strongly to Saddam’s decision to elevate Uday’s younger brother, Qusay, into a more prominent leadership role.

Now considered Saddam’s heir-apparent, Qusay Hussein controls the Iraqi intelligence and security services, the Republican Guard, and Special Republican Guard. He played a dominant role in the mass executions during Iraqi “prison cleansings” and in genocidal military campaigns against the al-Dulaym tribe in 1995 and marsh Arabs in 1997.

Another prominent rogue in the Iraqi regime is Saddam’s cousin, Lt. Gen. Ali Hasan al-Majid, the former Military Governor of Kuwait during the seven-month Iraqi occupation. He was also the architect of the Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, which resulted in the massacre of over 100,000 Kurds. The Kurds refer to him “Chemical Ali”, as he ordered the deadly poison gas attacks on the Kurdish town of Halabja that claimed over 5,000 civilian lives.

Saddam’s three half-brothers, Barzan Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikrit, Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikrit, and Sab’awi Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikrit have also played a large role in the Iraqi regime reign of terror.

Barzan headed the Iraqi intelligence agency, Mukhabarat, and is believed to have ordered the assassination of numerous Iraqi dissidents abroad. During his tenure at the helm of the Mukhabarat, he was directly responsible for the purging of ethnic minorities and the execution of thousands of suspected dissidents in the Barzani tribe in 1983.

Watban was Saddam’s minister of the interior and played a dominant role in the wave of brutal repression that followed Iraq’s defeat in the Gulf War in 1991. He has been directly linked to the mass executions of suspected opponents in the Baghdad suburbs of Shu’la and Thawra.

Sab’awai commanded the Mukhabarat in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation and bears responsibility for the horrific violations of the Geneva Convention perpetrated by Iraqi troops against Kuwaiti civilians between August 1990 and March 1991.

Key Ba’ath party loyalists include, Ali Salih Numan, the Ba’ath Party Regional Command member who ordered the destruction of Shi’ite holy sites in Karbala and An Najaf, and the ever-present former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.

Although relieved of his responsibilities as Prime Minister by Saddam in May 2001, Muhammad Hamza al-Zubaydi repressed the Shi’ite uprising in Southern Iraq in 1991. A widely circulated video tape features al-Zubaydi prominently kicking and beating captured dissidents, as well as commanding his generals to “wipe out” Shi’ite tribes in the southern marshlands.

Abdul Tawab el-Mulla Howeish is deputy prime minister and military industrialization minister. He is the individual believed to be chiefly tasked with the furthering of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

This constitutes truly a rogues gallery that would give even the villains of Nuremberg a run for their money in sheer cruelty and barbarism.

A regime change in Iraq is unquestionably a necessity. However, if it is to be accomplished we have to ensure that it is done right and done right from day one.There cannot be more return trips to Iraq after this one. The only solution is a complete dismantling of the regime, not just the elimination of its personified evil as embodied by Saddam Hussein alone.

Contributing Editor Christian M. Weber is a 1st lieutenant specializing in military intelligence in the New York Guard’s Civil and Military Affairs Division. He can be reached at LtWeberNYG@aol.com.

Table of Contents

In the Long Run, We'll All Lose

By Paul Connors

As I watched President Bush wrangling with the Senate and the House of Representatives this week over how and when the United States will go to war with Iraq, it occurred to me that we are going to wage war with one of the smallest militaries ever fielded by the United States.

Part of that stems from the current nature of modern warfare, part derives from the fact that U.S. military still faces no “peer competitor” in terms of military technology – and part is based on the undisputable fact that once again, the civilian leaders in the Defense Department thinks they know better than those in uniform about how to wage war.

So before we launch the invasion of Iraq, let's take a quick reality check.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, the senior DoD political appointee, is a political retread who served less than two years as defense secretary in the short-lived Ford administration from 1974-76. He had served in the U.S. Navy as an aviator in the late 1950s, a time when the fleet was still flying Grumman F-9F Cougars and was just beginning to field the F-11F Tiger.

Rumsfeld left the Navy at the end of his commitment with the rank of lieutenant. Instead of continuing to fly in the Naval Reserve, he joined the business world. He occasionally dabbled in politics, not as an elected official who had to win the confidence of a constituency, but as an appointee, beholden to the man who selected him for office.

The current Congress, while purportedly designed to represent the diversity of American society, does not in fact do so. Both houses together count less than 33 percent of their members as veterans. Nevertheless, these “distinguished ladies and gentlemen” believe they know what's best for the armed forces and ultimately, the safety and security of the American people. The fact of the matter is this: They don't know what's the best way to guarantee our safety, and at times, I wonder if they really even care.

On one hand, we have a Commander-in-Chief who has thrown his support behind his administration’s war faction (particularly Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz) and is hell-bent on toppling Saddam Hussein from power. On the other hand, we have the unilateral disarmament advocates in the House and Senate who are wringing their hands that the big, bad United States War Machine may go on the march again and this time regardless of what the world thinks.

This post-9/11 political climate has revived the old cliché, “politics makes for strange bedfellows.” While the war against terror proceeds and the United States plans for what could be a truly apocalyptic war in the Middle East, I wonder if we have really given enough thought to what kind of an expedition upon which we are embarking.

What the Bush administration and its congressional foes have in common is an apparently deliberate disregard for the negative impact of current wartime policies on many of those serving in uniform – an impact that will drastically worsen if we proceed as planned into Iraq.

Former President Clinton established the precedent of military operations on the cheap – calling up Guard and reserve units – to carry out his ludicrous “meals on wheels” and peacekeeping missions that had nothing to do with the security of the United States. During that long and dark eight-year period, the active component shrank by 40 percent and the second teams were called in time and time again to perform missions for which they were ill-suited. Despite all that, many part-time warriors stayed in, believing in what they did and knowing that their service transcended their own personal needs.

It is painfully obvious that Rumsfeld in like manner has decided to fight this war on the cheap. He is doing so by abusing the goodwill and patriotism of members of all of the military reserve components. It's very easy to call up Guard and reserve units, which in peacetime cost only 1/5 similar active-duty unit to maintain, as opposed to mobilizing the bulk of the active-duty force for overseas duty.

Today we face determined enemies yet to be vanquished. But the way we are proceeding is not the most effective way to go.

Despite the fact that the United States of America was brutally attacked, the average American has not felt the impact of the war on terror (apart from those those who lost their jobs in the post-9/11 economic downturn). The American people need to unite behind a common purpose and then support the painful and expensive measures that will enable us to take the objective.

The U.S. military is not manned by mercenaries, although some would try to convince you they are. Our civilian leaders need to remember that everyone in the military has the option to leave when his or her terms expire. Since we don't have a draft – although the involuntary active-service extension forced on reservists constitutes involuntary conscription – no one is forced to serve indefinitely.  

This current “phony war,” where we squander valuable personnel resources where there is little or no need, is going to cost dearly when frustrated and disillusioned reserve personnel precipitate a genuine manpower crisis by quitting en masse.

Should that day arrive, we will all be the losers then.

Guest Column: VA Confirms Massive 1991 Casualties

By Denise Nichols

As the Bush administration and the U.S. military gear up for an anticipated invasion of Iraq, both our national political leaders and military service personnel should pay close heed to some new startling statistics on casualties from the first Gulf War in 1991.

The National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, of which I am vice chairman, has analyzed the latest Department of Veterans Affairs report on Gulf War I personnel, including medical illnesses and deaths in the 11 years since Operation Desert Storm. (To read the actual VA report, “May 2002 Gulf War Veterans Information,” dated Sept. 10, 2002, click on the hyperlink for the full breakdown of the statistics. To read the Coalition’s full study of the VA report, see our analysis.)

The most striking disclosure in the VA report is that of the total number of Gulf War I casualties that have been documented in the decade following since the end of the 100-hour ground war in early 1991.

Rather than the conflict totals of 148 combat deaths, 145 non-combat fatalities and 213 wounded service personnel tallied at the end of the fighting (a .1 percent overall casualty rate for the 537,000 U.S. personnel who served in the Persian Gulf region), the true casualty figures have skyrocketed over the past decade as a result of Gulf War Illness (GWI).

In fact, 36 percent of eligible Gulf War I veterans – over 206,861 – have filed medical claims with the VA for illnesses stemming from their Desert Storm I service, which is an astronomical number in comparison to claims filed after previous wars. (This 36-percent figure is the actual casualty rate from Gulf War I, not the 27-percent figure that the VA itself estimates in terms of claims granted.)

Critical information contained in the VA report includes:

The Executive Summary reveals that 82 percent (572,833) of the 696,778 troops who participated in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm are eligible for VA benefits, including medical care:

* Of that total, 206,861, or 36 percent of eligible veterans, have already filed medical claims with the VA;

* To date, the VA has denied benefits to 24,011 veterans, or about 11 percent of those who have applied for care;  

* And 11,783 claims processed for undiagnosed illnesses (206,861 claims submitted total for all reasons), nearly three-fourths of those for undiagnosed illnesses have been denied help in direct contradiction of the law President Bush signed into effect on Dec. 27, 2001, which mandates that the VA compensate Gulf War veterans diagnosed with symptoms of Gulf War Illness (undiagnosed illness), and the categories of chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity and fibromyalgia.

In the same summary chart, there is another astounding disclosure.

The report notes that for the subcategory of “Gulf War era” veterans (those who did not serve in the actual theater of war), 82 percent of those who have applied have received VA medical claims approval, in sharp contrast with only 76 percent of actual Gulf War veterans. One must ask why the VA is honoring medical claims for those ho did not serve in the war zone at a higher rate than those who did.

These statistics raise a number of questions that the VA itself has yet to address: Is there discrimination by the VA in regards to the treatment of war veterans and those who did not serve in the war zone? Is there a lack of accountability for caring for our Gulf War I veterans, and if so why? Are the “era” veterans showing a higher illness rate themselves due to any number of factors – including the utilization of anthrax vaccine causing illness-related casualties? Is there a potential for other causes from secondary vector sources?  

And then there is the death rate for Gulf War I veterans.

Section 5 of the VA report confirms that 8,013 Gulf War I veterans – or 1 percent of the 696,778 U.S. personnel who served in the conflict during the period Aug. 2, 1990-July 31, 1991), have died. Moreover, the 1-percent death rate has occurred in less than 12 years.

The death rate for Gulf War “era” veterans is slightly less, at 0.7 percent. The death rate for deployed troops was 0.9156 percent. The death rate for all who served in theater is 0.536 percent. This data is deeply concerning because it is an incomplete count and occurred in a population (physically fit cohort) considered more healthy than the American public as a whole.

Although the numbers of service-connected deaths included in the May 2002 VA data are considered “raw data,” we must still be concerned. Those figures are most likely incomplete and would probably be low in comparison to the actual figures. (For example, the deaths reported in the VA study do not include deaths of those Gulf War veterans who died after leaving the service and who did not apply for VA medical care.)

The confusing raw data on deaths justifies a more comprehensive study on postwar veterans’ deaths, including How many of the conflict veterans have died, what are the data sources for those figures and what data was not used to get this figure, and what were the causes of death.

Another astonishing disclosure all but buried in the VA report is that a large number of service personnel who were deployed into the Persian Gulf region after the war ended on Feb. 28, 1991, have also become ill. They have received anthrax vaccine and oral polio vaccine, they have been exposed to the theater of operations that was contaminated by chemicals and depleted uranium.

These startling figures come after a decade of U.S. government nonfeasance toward Gulf War Illness. Gulf War veteran groups have tried for over 12 years to get the DoD, VA, Congress and several administrations to admit their lack of accountability and to apply lessons learned to improve the medical care of injured and ill combat veterans.

The civilian public is no better prepared because of this lack of utilizing “lessons learned” by the military. Doctors and researchers who have seen the reality of Gulf War Illness have desperately tried to help but have been ignored and some have even been attacked professionally. A handful of these doctors and researchers continue to try to get the message out in any way possible but still face roadblocks and bureaucratic opposition.

We call for immediate joint hearings involving both the Senate and the House to resolve the urgent needs of Gulf War I veterans. Hearings need to also determine the combat readiness of our current force and the allocation and use of medical resources to meet anticipated future needs. We owe this as a nation to those combat veterans who have and will defend our cherished freedoms.

We call for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi to immediately implement the Public Law signed by President Bush on Dec. 27, 2001. We call on Secretary Principi to address the comments on the missing data regarding cancers and diagnosed illnesses in Gulf War veterans and to demonstrate a proactive stance in finally meeting the needs of Gulf War veterans from 1991. We also call on Secretary Principii to make public what improvements have been made in the past 12 years, to prove that the VA is truly ready for Round Two in the Persian Gulf.

We call for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to preserve any data collected in the past 12 years since the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War. We call for Secretary Rumsfeld to report on what really happened in the 1991 conflict that may have caused GWI. We also call on Secretary Rumsfeld to report on how the armed services are prepared to treat the next round of casualties from the Persian Gulf.

As we watch yet another group of warriors prepare once more for war in the Gulf region, we know that existing force protection, medical care and reporting accountability deficiencies have not been resolved. If we continue to fail to provide medical care for previous combat casualties, how can we expect any of our nation's sons or daughters to willfully participate in combat in the future?

Nichols, a Gulf War veteran and retired U.S. Air Force Reserve major, is Vice Chairman of the National Vietnam Veteran and Gulf War Veterans Coalition. She can be reached at DSNurse@aol.com.

Table of Contents

By Matthew Dodd

Anyone who picks up the basic Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 2002 benefits pamphlet (Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents) will notice on its cover an inspiring quote from retired Army Gen. Omar Bradley, the nation’s VA administrator during 1945-47: “We are dealing with veterans, not procedures, with their problems, not ours.”

It is in the spirit of Bradley’s words that veterans organizations and their allies in Congress are defying Pentagon and White House opposition to a very important issue, concurrent receipt.

For those unfamiliar with this topic, a quick review of concurrent receipt. Under a century-old law, military retirees entitled to VA disability payments must forfeit a dollar-for-dollar portion of their retirement pay equal to their disability pay. Receiving both payments is known as “concurrent receipt.”

Since writing twice in DefenseWatch several months back about the contentious debate in Washington, D.C., over concurrent receipt (“A Matter of Simple Fairness to Disabled Vets,” July 17, 2002 and “ ‘Concurrent Receipt' Update: I'd Fire Dov Zakheim,” July 24, 2002), so much has been subsequently said and written about the issue that I decided to compile a master file of information, organizing it in a structure similar to that of a standard Navy Department JAG Manual investigation, with separate categories for facts, opinions and recommendations. I thought organizing along the JAG Manual appropriate because, like the objects of those formal investigations, the issue of concurrent receipt includes a lot of interest, a lot of questions, a lot of information, many different reference sources of information, and at least two different versions and perspectives of singular events.

Here is an update on concurrent receipt derived from that 40-page file:

In 1891, federal legislation was enacted prohibiting the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.

Military retirement pay is fully taxable and VA disability pay is tax-free. Concurrent receipt is sometimes called – to the anger of its supporters – “double dipping.”

Several General Accounting Office (GAO) reports show VA inconsistencies with processing and deciding on retirees’ disability claims.

Charles Abell, assistant defense secretary for force management policy, says the theory behind the current system is that if a service member completes military service and receives retired pay, and then also receives a VA payment for a condition related to that service, this constitutes “two pays for the same event.”

According to retired Army Col. Chuck Partridge, a spokesman for the National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS), “If a military retiree receives a 100-percent disability rating, it's possible that his VA compensation could exceed his retirement pay. In that case, the retiree would get his VA stipend but nothing in the way of retired military pay.” In other words, a disabled retiree may honorably serve his country in uniform for 20+ years and not be paid a dime for that service.

Disabled veterans can draw VA compensation while working as federal civilians, apply military years toward civil service pensions, and, once retired, draw full annuities plus VA money. In other words, a retired U.S. civil servant, who is also a veteran, can receive VA disability pay plus civil service pension, with no offset.

Military retirees are the only retirees from any sector who must forfeit one dollar of their retired pay for each dollar of VA disability compensation awarded. For some, the forfeiture cancels all retired pay earned, thus forcing those retirees to fund their own retirement.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is on record advocating to senior presidential advisors to recommend that President Bush veto the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Bill if it emerges from an ongoing House-Senate conference committee containing language authorizing concurrent receipt.

Defense undersecretary David Chu has asserted that concurrent receipt ignores the “generous’’ retirement that members earn after 20 years of military service. He adds that VA compensation was designed for veterans unable to complete careers due to disability. He also cites a 1996 survey indicating that military retirees with disabilities had the same average income as those without disabilities.

OMB estimates that ending the retired pay offset for all would raise mandatory federal spending by $58 billion and Defense retirement accrual costs by $20 billion, over 10 years.

The results of the congressional conference resolving the differences between the Senate and House versions of the FY03 National Defense Authorization Act are still pending. Some congressional sources say that it is likely that the conference committee will approve the House plan to provide concurrent receipt incrementally to military retirees with VA disability ratings of 60 percent or higher. The House plan includes funding, whereas the Senate plan, which would allow full concurrent receipt

immediately for all retirees with disability ratings, does not. Other congressional sources say that some form of concurrent receipt may be authorized, but Congressional appropriators may not fund it.

On Sept. 16, 2002, NBC Nightly News presented a special segment on concurrent receipt. The show was titled, “Forgotten Heroes – Is Anyone Listening?” Using the term, “broken promises,” the segment concluded that disabilities are disqualifiers to full retirement pay.

Eight days later on Sept. 24, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee expressing his concerns with legislation that would end the ban on concurrent receipt, noting, “This would divert critical resources away from the war on terrorism, the transformation of our military capabilities, and important personnel programs such as pay raises and facilities improvements.”

Here is a cross-section of opinions and conclusions from veterans’ groups, columnists and other commentators:

“Roughly 700,000 retired military members -- about one of every three -- receive VA disability compensation for injuries or illnesses tied to their service, said Brad Flohr, a senior official with the VA compensation and pension service. That number could double in five years, Flohr said, so that 70 percent of two million military retirees could be drawing tax-free disability pay from the VA… Many of new claimants now qualify only for Defense Department disability retirement but will shift to VA disability rolls. Another 118,000 retirees now drawing VA compensation will seek a new review of disabilities in the hope that their ratings will be raised to what will be the lucrative threshold of 60 percent or higher… The VA isn't quite sure how many retirees stand to benefit from the 60 percent rule. One recent estimate is 80,000. Whatever the right number, these retirees are in line for a substantial pay boost -- a minimum of $790 more a month for 60 percent disabled, on up to a minimum of $2163 a month for 100-percent disabled. That will open the floodgate of new claims.” –- Syndicated columnist Tom Philpott.

“No one would dare to reduce retirement benefits for postal workers with hernias from hoisting mailbags. Nor would anyone in Congress have the temerity to suggest that Civil Service employees forfeit a portion of their retirement checks to pay for on-the-job injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome. Only those who do the dirty and dangerous work of defending this nation suffer this indignity - the very ones who believed the [incumbent] president's promise that, ‘My administration understands America's obligations not only to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past - our veterans.’ ” -- Syndicated columnist Oliver North.

“Statistics presented by Defense Undersecretary David Chu, alleging that the dollar-for-dollar forfeiture of retired pay by military retirees awarded VA disability compensation poses no income hardship for disabled veterans, failed to give the whole story, according to sources. Chu inferred that household income averages didn't vary substantially between disabled and non-disabled retirees. However, not included in the 1996 survey he quoted were retirees with 100-percent disabilities and retirees with disability ratings so high that every dollar of their retired pay was forfeited. In short, the most seriously disabled, meaning those most likely to earn less in a civilian career, were simply not counted. Furthermore, the sample taken was so small (only 337 of 19,484) that it could be considered statistically insignificant.” -- Armed Forces News weekly e-mail newsletter.

“Obviously, everybody would like to have a bigger paycheck. That's natural human instinct, but government spending has limits… This is not free…. Buddha is not raining cash on the federal government. If we start paying the accrual charges behind this…that means barracks I don't get to fix. And having had the privilege of touring many barracks, even renovated ones, they ain't all so great.... So this is not just a theoretical let's-be-nice-to-everybody issue. This is a question of how do we use the nation's limited resources… It's not clear what problem we're solving. The beneficiaries of this change are all already drawing full military pensions, completely indexed for inflation, and carrying with them lifetime health care, commissary and other benefits. Our position is, 'We've already compensated these people.'" ”             -- Undersecretary of Defense David Chu.

“No military member was ever told, ‘There are conditions under which your retirement can be taken away if you become disabled.’ ... It was never in the fine print, much less the contract …. ” -- Steve Strobridge, director of government relations, The Retired Officers Association.

“Everybody keeps talking about the cost to the government [if the ban is lifted]. Somebody ought to think about how much money the government has taken from military retirees all these years and never blinked an eye.” -- Steve Robertson, Legislative Director, The American Legion.

"No other category of federal employees, to include the Congress and the executive branch, is required to relinquish a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because they are also receiving VA disability compensation. It is inconceivable to us that the president would perpetuate such an injustice for the sake of achieving a balanced budget …. ” -- VFW Commander-in-Chief James N. Goldsmith.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) last Feb. 15 provided lawmakers with what it termed the “major arguments” both for and against lifting the current ban on concurrent receipt:

Reasons to support establishing concurrent receipt:

* Military retired pay was earned for length of service; VA disability compensation for injuries or illnesses. They are two different programs so paying both to a retiree would not constitute a duplication of benefits.

* If cost is the big issue, allowing limited concurrent receipt could make sense, perhaps targeting the most severely disabled, or retirees with combat disabilities or retirees living on the edge of poverty. Lifting the ban only for 100 percent combat-disabled retirees would cost just $50 million a year.

* VA disability pay recipients are entitled to other federal benefits, why not military retired pay?

* Persons drawing VA disability pay can receive full pensions from a wide variety of other sources, including federal civilian careers, without suffering an offset. Why target military retirees for an offset?

Reasons to oppose establishing concurrent receipt:

* The cost of full, or nearly full, concurrent receipt "would be enormous," almost $3 billion this year, $40 billion (other estimates run as high as $60 billion) over 10 years.

* Ending or easing the offset “would be sticking the camel's nose into the tent,” that is, setting a precedent for reduction or elimination of all kinds of similar offsets of one or more federal payments, perhaps costing billions of dollars more.

* Although some federal programs do not require an offset for receipt of VA disability compensation, none of these programs involves both “disability and retirement pay from the same job and agency where the disability occurred.”

* VA disability pay is authorized on “much more liberal grounds” than other disability plans, and a disability can be certified many years after a person leaves service. As a result, “have tenuous connection” to their military service.

* Concurrent receipt “was never promised to those asking for it.”

“Pentagon political appointees and White House numbers crunchers are swimming with the current of unjust policy.  On the other hand, standing like a rock in their support of a square deal for service-connected military retirees, are The American Legion, numerous other veterans organizations, and co-sponsors of bipartisan Concurrent Receipt legislation spearheaded by Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid and Florida's Rep. Mike Bilirakis.  I recommend these opposing sides bury the hatchet - bury it squarely into the obsolete language of a century-old law that steals from military retirees with service-connected disabilities.     Veterans who earned both retired pay and disability compensation should receive their full and just benefits; this is a principle is worth fighting for.  The 107th Congress should make it so, ignoring civilian politicos who are unfamiliar with the law of the barracks: Take care of the troops and the troops will take care of you.” -- Ronald F. Conley, national commander of The American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization.

Recommendations

* That instead of trying to convince concurrent receipt supporters why their position is illogical, those opposed to concurrent receipt attempt to explain why they do not ask for or try to stop the concurrent receipt of retirement pay and disability compensation from all other federal government departments (i.e. members or staff of the White House, Executive Branch, Congress, Federal Civil Service retirees, etc.).

* That if this administration decides not to lift the ban on concurrent receipt and uses the immense cost of lifting the ban as justification, then the administration (especially Congress) be willing to simply and publicly list all the other higher priority issues and initiatives that were funded instead of concurrent receipt.

* That everyone reflect on the spirit of the opening quote by Gen. Bradley, and on the spirit and words of President Bush himself:

“To the veteran, we owe gratitude – shown not just in words of tribute, but in acts of care and attention .... to raise the standard of service – not just for veterans, but for our military retirees. All of them must be treated with the care they have been promised and the dignity they have earned .… America's veterans ask only that government honor its commitments as they honored theirs. They ask that their interests be protected, as they protected their country's interest in foreign lands. In all matters of concern to veterans – from health care to program funding – you have my pledge that those commitments will be kept. My administration will do all it can to assist our veterans and to correct oversights of the past .… My administration understands America's obligations not only to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past - our veterans …. Veterans are a priority for this administration.”

The time has come for concurrent receipt.

Contributing Editor Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd is the pen name of an active-duty Marine Corps officer stationed at the Pentagon. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com.

Table of Contents

Guest Column: A Matter of Principle for the Military

By Ronald F. Conley

“In matters of style swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock,” Thomas Jefferson said.

White House bean-counters and Pentagon political appointees are swimming in a century-long current of federal law that “soaks” military retirees who have service-connected disabilities. But the 2.8-million member American Legion, other advocacy groups and right-thinking members of Congress support the principle: A grateful nation owes just compensation to military retirees who incurred disabilities during a career of uniformed service to their nation.

Military retirees with service-connected disabilities continue to have their military retired pay reduced by the amount of disability compensation that they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Concurrent Receipt” legislation that would allow disabled military retirees to receive every penny they earned is in the hands of a House and Senate conference committee working on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill.

While The American Legion fights hard for passage of this long-overdue legislation, the Office of Management and Budget urges the president to veto it. Further, Pentagon officials pit patriots – past and present – against each other, arguing that the quality of life and the warfighting capability of active-duty troops will suffer if service-connected military retirees receive the payments Uncle Sam owes them.

Don't they realize that many active-duty troops plan to retire from military service and would not support Uncle Sam robbing disabled military retirees?

The Pentagon's spin cycle is in high gear. In a Sept. 25, 2002, “report” by the American Forces Press Service, DoD spuriously argues that paying a military retiree disability compensation and retired pay concurrently represents “double dipping,” two paychecks for the same service. That point is patently ridiculous.

Retired pay is for longevity of service. Disability compensation is for bodily sacrifice suffered as a result of military service. Furthermore, DoD alludes to research that indicates Concurrent Receipt legislation would benefit an affluent population at the expense of improvements to quarters, hangars and the availability of spare parts for the weapons of war.

Allowing service-connected military retirees to receive concurrently their disability compensation and retired pay “is not good government,” says Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Abell in the report. Abell also suggests OMB underestimates the cost of Concurrent Receipt legislation: $58 billion over 10 years.

Principle is routinely a casualty of DoD's legislative and public relations wars against service-connected military retirees, the only citizens who pay for their VA disability compensation.

Although it questions the cost of Concurrent Receipt legislation, the Defense Department's spin does not address the fact that OMB's estimate, $58 billion over 10 years, reflects hard-earned compensation that the nation takes from the pockets of hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans and their families.

Frankly, I can imagine a price tag more staggering than OMB's estimate: How many billions have been deducted from disabled retirees’ military retired pay over the years to save Uncle Sam the cost of their disability compensation? That figure would be absolutely disgraceful.

Further, for all of DoD's deceptive drivel about “double dipping,” there is not a peep from the Pentagon about the discriminatory nature of existing law. If these veterans had left the military after they incurred their service-connected disabilities and subsequently retired from any other federal agency except a branch of the U.S. armed forces, they would receive both retired pay and disability compensation in full.

Service-connected military retirees make a sacrifice that no other service-connected federal retirees make. That's not right.

Pentagon political appointees and White House numbers-crunchers are swimming with the current of unjust policy. On the other hand, standing like a rock in their support of a square deal for service-connected military retirees, are The American Legion, numerous other veterans organizations, and co-sponsors of bipartisan Concurrent Receipt legislation spearheaded by Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, and Rep. Mike Bilirakis, (R-FL).I recommend that these opposing sides bury the hatchet - bury it squarely into the obsolete language of a century-old law that steals from military retirees with service-connected disabilities.

Veterans who earned both retired pay and disability compensation should receive their full and just benefits; this is a principle is worth fighting for. The 107th Congress should make it so, ignoring civilian politicos who are unfamiliar with the law of the barracks: Take care of the troops and the troops will take care of you.

Conley is national commander of The American Legion.

Table of Contents