|
Breaking News |
February 27, 2006 |
Panel: Iraq War’s U.S. Health
Impact Goes Beyond Troops
PRESS ASSOCIATES
UNION NEWS SERVICE
Mark Gruenberg, Editor
1000 Vermont Avenue NW #101 / Washington DC 20006 /
PHONE: (202) 898-4825
FAX: (202) 898-9004/ E-mail:
press_associates@yahoo.com
February 27, 2006
PANEL: Iraq War’s U.S. Health Impact Goes Beyond
Troops
By Mark Gruenberg
PAI Staff Writer
WASHINGTON (PAI)--The U.S. health impact
of the war in Iraq is extensive, sometimes
subtle and extends beyond U.S. troops to their
families and the public at large, a five-member
panel warned a forum of unionists in
Washington.
And panelists told the Feb. 23 session,
one of a series on health issues sponsored by
the AFL-CIO Department for Professional
Employees, that if people knew the full impact
of the Iraq war, including the health impact,
they would turn against it.
“If this stuff was shown on TV, the public
would demand the war would end in about a week,”
said Communications Workers Vice President
Brooks Sunkett, a Vietnam veteran. That’s one
big difference between Iraq and Vietnam, he
noted: U.S. television cameras are not showing
the struggles and setbacks of troops in the
field.
Besides Sunkett, “The Health Consequences
of the Iraq War” panelists were Dr. Barry Levy,
a past president of the American Public Health
Association, Office and Professional Employees
Secretary-Treasurer Nancy
Wohlforth, U.S. First Infantry Iraq War veteran
Garrett Reppenhagen, and Boise, Idaho, native
Elizabeth Frederick, whose husband/boyfriend
served in Iraq.
All five oppose the war. Wohlforth is co-convenor
of U.S. Labor Against the War. Sunkett and
Wohlforth led USLAW’s successful lobbying at the
AFL-CIO convention last year for the
federation’s first-ever opposition to a U.S.
war.
Sunkett said he opposes the war, started
in March 2003 by GOP President George W. Bush,
because of the similarities between Iraq and
Vietnam, where he served 1967-68. That includes
the shifting reasons for going to war and the
difference between those reasons and what
service personnel found on the ground.
“When we came home from Vietnam, we thought we
would be attacked” by anti-war protesters here,
Sunkett added. But the U.S. protesters hated
the policy, not the troops. Now, U.S.
policymakers say the same thing, and accuse Iraq
war foes of opposing the troops. “It wasn’t
true then and it isn’t true now,” Sunkett
said.
Besides battlefield deaths, the five
discussed other impacts of the war, both on U.S.
health issues. Levy produced statistics on the
war, including an estimated 100,000 Iraqi
civilian dead, destruction of 12 percent
of its hospitals, water and sewer breakdowns
leading to disease and lack of medical
personnel. U.S. issues included:
* 2,500 dead U.S. service personnel and
more than 16,000 seriously injured.
“This is a body parts war,” Reppenhagen said.
Unlike in past wars, seriously injured soldiers
are surviving--but minus arms, legs and faces.
Those injuries also produce a lot of stress, he
said.
“I have a friend, Adrian, in Walter Reed Medical
Center in D.C., whose face was blown off. They
gave him a new face, but… He asks: ‘How am I
going to go out on a job interview looking like
this?’ People don’t realize the horrors that
are occurring on a daily basis” to U.S. service
personnel in Iraq, Reppenhagen added.
* Diversion of U.S. resources to the war.
Levy said two-thirds of the National Guard and
Reserves have now served in Iraq, many of them
on repeat tours of duty, with an average tour of
15 months.
“Many are first responders, police, Fire
Fighters” at home, he added. “We saw what
happened when they aren’t there: In Hurricane
Katrina, they and their equipment were in Iraq
and Afghanistan,” producing U.S. public health
problems, Levy said.
* Potential nuclear contamination of U.S.
troops. Reppenhagen explained the latest smart
bombs include uranium, as does body armor.
Troops were told not to enter blown-up homes or
vehicles, in order to cut
their radiation exposure. He knows two injured
colleagues, now at Walter Reed Medical Center in
D.C., who developed throat cancer from
exposure. “The military admits it,” he
added.
* High stress among returning veterans,
exemplified by a high divorce rate among
military families. Frederick noted that stress
manifests itself not just among the vets, but
among their relatives. When flashbacks to Iraq
waken a spouse who then can’t resume peaceful
sleep, both members of the couple are up all
night, she said.
“My soldier came home in November. Physically
he’s home, but mentally he’s absent,” Frederick
added, “Thirty percent of returning officers
have stress-related health problems” as a result
of their wartime service, Levy said, quoting the
Army’s surgeon general.
* Reppenhagen identified a new type of
stressful health problem, which the military has
yet to recognize: Returned U.S. soldiers whose
only way “to
stay sane” is to try to find some justification
for their actions, by asking why they were sent
to Iraq--but who get no good answers from Bush
and other policymakers.
“They don’t have post-traumatic stress disorder
in the common sense of the word, but they’ve got
anxiety disorders that aren’t being covered.
They’re freaking out,” he said. Some are
turning to crime and alcohol, directing their
anger at themselves.
* Devaluation of U.S. public services,
including public health and safety services, in
favor of spending on the war. “If we’re going
to be able to protect ourselves from terrorists,
you can’t do it with a strained and devalued
public sector,” Sunkett said. “Our public
health system is underfunded because it’s been
contracted out to the private sector, and they
aren’t up to speed.”
The panelists demanded the labor movement
get behind anti-war protests, beyond the AFL-CIO
resolution. That includes joining a mass rally
in New York against the war scheduled for April
29.
Including both the Iraq war and anti-union
actions and edicts, “The biggest terrorist is
right down the block over there,” Wohlforth
said, gesturing out the AFL-CIO’s end windows at
the White House home of GOP President George W.
Bush.
|