Post-Iraq/Afghanistan Vets have sad homecoming

welsh

Junkmaster
Last week I heard an article on post-traumatic stress on returning vets-

NPR article PTS on women vets

as well as risks of suicide among returning vets-
suicide rates on returning vets

Happily the administration seems to be more aware of this problem- PTS tests on returning vets

However, there is the economic costs as well. Let's see reservists go off to war, lose their businesses and Halliburton and its ilk make billions?

Something wrong with this picture?

Wait, didn't this also happen after Vietnam?

Advocates See Veterans of War on Terror Joining the Ranks of the Homeless
By Leo Shane III
Stars and Stripes

Friday 03 June 2005

Washington - Advocates for the homeless already are seeing veterans from the war on terror living on the street, and say the government must do more to ease their transition from military to civilian life.

Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, said about 70 homeless veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan contacted her group’s facilities in 2004, and another 125 homeless veterans from those conflicts last year petitioned the Department of Veterans Affairs for assistance.

"It’s not a big wave, but it’s an indicator that we still haven’t done our job," she said. "I think that our nation would be very embarrassed if they knew that."

The group, founded in 1990, is a national network of charitable organizations designed to provide resources and aid for homeless veterans.

Veterans Affairs officials estimate that about 250,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and another 250,000 experience homelessness at some point.

Boone said the reasons behind the veterans’ housing problems are varied: Some have emotional and mental issues from their combat experience, some have trouble finding work after leaving the military, some have health care bills which result in financial distress.

George Basher, director of the New York State Department of Veterans Affairs, said he believes guardsmen and reservists are particularly at risk because they often bypass resources like the Transition Assistance Program when they return home.

"Those are the ones most likely to have private health insurance, so they’re likely to show up at an HMO looking for treatment and not a VA hospital," he said. "There’s no central place for treatment."

Still, Pete Dougherty, coordinator for the Veterans’ Affairs Department's homeless programs, said veterans today have more options - outpatient facilities, counselors, job training programs - than the troops returning from the Vietnam War.

"Most of the folks we’re seeing now are worried about losing their homes and think they won’t be able to afford to stay in them," he said. "Before, the vets were out there but were unseen and unnoticed. Now we can reach out and make a difference sooner."

But Boone added that most veterans don’t seek help for mental and emotional problems for years after their return from combat, meaning the problem of homelessness among war on terror veterans will likely grow.

"We’re still going to have homeless veterans because we haven’t tackled how to deal with the separation issue," she said.
 
Bradylama-

Except its those reservists who are private contractors in their private life, who know about a few useful things like building houses, policing a beat, fixing broken pipes, that are essential to the war effort?

Lots of sympathy there?
 
Reservists rarely do work that relates to their real-life job, unless they're officers. The Corps of Engineers builds houses and does the plumbing. Unless you're independent, you do what the military trains you to do.

As far as I know, anyway. I was only in the military for four years, so I may have overlooked something.
 
welsh said:
Bradylama-

Except its those reservists who are private contractors in their private life, who know about a few useful things like building houses, policing a beat, fixing broken pipes, that are essential to the war effort?

Lots of sympathy there?

John Hancock cleared this up, so allow me to explain.

The problem I see with this picture is that business owners had commited themselves to the Reserve. Considering that the condition of being in the Reserve is that you'd be called to war should one arise (which they always do) I don't see what is wrong with big corporations coming in and taking their market share.

It's not like this is some underhanded corporate plot to undermine private businesses.

Then again, in the offchance that it is, the only thing that's been taken advantage of is lack of foresight.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
You should try living in a country where most of men over the age of 35 have fought in a war...
PTSP galore...
It's PTSD, D.
 
One thing to add to my earlier posts about reservists: the commercials about the Army and the Air Force that show a guy enlisting to do what he loves and is good at are lies. Bold-faced, evil lies.

Also, the new Air Force motto is "Cross into the Blue, where the most important thing... is YOU!" HAHAHAHAHA! Riiiight. Case in point.
 
Bradylama said:
welsh said:
Bradylama-

Except its those reservists who are private contractors in their private life, who know about a few useful things like building houses, policing a beat, fixing broken pipes, that are essential to the war effort?

Lots of sympathy there?

John Hancock cleared this up, so allow me to explain.

The problem I see with this picture is that business owners had commited themselves to the Reserve. Considering that the condition of being in the Reserve is that you'd be called to war should one arise (which they always do) I don't see what is wrong with big corporations coming in and taking their market share.

It's not like this is some underhanded corporate plot to undermine private businesses.

Then again, in the offchance that it is, the only thing that's been taken advantage of is lack of foresight.


Unless, of course, it's the corporations that start the war in the first place.
 
I'm sure they started it for reasons other than "The Competition's Leadership is in the Reserves."
 
Last week I heard an article on post-traumatic stress on returning vets-

NPR article PTS on women vets

as well as risks of suicide among returning vets-
suicide rates on returning vets

I thought you meant vets as in the nice man who stitches up Fido. Damn, you scared me!
 
Brady the question comes down to economic distribution.

All states are supposed to do three things (1) defend from hostile enemies from beyond their borders, (2) Maintain public order, (3) Distribute economic surpluses.

It's the third that I always thought the Libertarians were most worried about, and for good reason. My problem has been that their answer- the destruction of state institutions, essentially means that economic distribution favors the status quo powers- the rich are allowed to use their superior power to extract more lower classes.

The state can modify that distribution to further social policies- for example greater class mobility, opportunity for lower classes, social services that the market would not provide- etc.

Yet here we have a problem-
Those of our society that have gone to fight are often at an economic loss for their patriotism. By going abroad their businesses suffer- and the impact is mostly on small business owners who are also capital owners.

Those who benefit are the rich companies and their labor which either receive large grants to carry out services or, if they are employees- generous salaries. But labor basically services the owners of capital.

Who which owners of capital benefit from this war- the rich stockholders of major corporations.

Who suffers- the middle class holders of capital that own their own businesses.

If a government by its nature oversees economic distribution- this one is favorable of policies in which economic distribution flows from the lower classes to the upper, and not the reverse.

That sucks ass.
 
Welsh said:
Those who benefit are the rich companies and their labor which either receive large grants to carry out services or, if they are employees- generous salaries. But labor basically services the owners of capital.

And let's not forget that in this case the large companies also have direct economic interest in the continuation of the war and possibly the starting of new ones... (e.g. Haliburton)
 
Bradylama said:
That sucks ass.

Well, cry me a river. You should've bought stock. :'D

What makes you think I didn't?

Short answer though- disappointing. I thought you'd have a better libertarian answer to this. But maybe you like a country where the rich get richer and the poor get fucked, and the person with ability gets frustrated. It's getting harder to be Horatio Alger these days.
 
Libertarians don't have an answer for this, because we don't see what's wrong. The small businesses have suffered because of the decisions of their leadership (e.g. enlisting in the Reserves). If big companies are going to come in and take advantage of that, then that's a-ok. It should be within their right to do so.

Business doesn't stop when you go to war. If you're patriotic enough to enlist yourself, then you should be prepared to sacrifice everything when duty calls, including your own well-being.

If there was nothing to lose in patriotism then it wouldn't be patriotic.
 
But that's not the point really- the question is who is getting paid.

The companies that work for the US as contractors and sub-contractors are making a fortune here.

The small businesses that collapse are paying the cost.

Should there be some effort on the part of government to help small businesses or should it merely work on behalf of large industry?

Remember, as Barrington Moore taught us years ago- it's the middle class that makes democracy, not the upper classes. Yet by supporting large industries you are again supporting inequality that favors the rich over the middle class.
 
Should there be some effort on the part of government to help small businesses or should it merely work on behalf of large industry?

It shouldn't work for either. I don't even think the government should have subsidized the Airline industry. Is the concept of Laissez Faire so hard to understand?
 
Bradylama said:
If there was nothing to lose in patriotism then it wouldn't be patriotic.

I think Mussolini or Hitler based a whole speech about that thought... or was it Stalin? OMG, you're a fucking commie! You anti-democratic dipshit!

Bradylama said:
Is the concept of Laissez Faire so hard to understand?

No, it simply became obsolete almost a century ago.
 
Back
Top