PurpleheartOklahoma (scroll down)

Tom Philpott | July 15, 2010

The war on Arizona – and we the people

Patrick Buchanan

Posted: July 13, 2010

Not since President Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and JFK sent U.S. marshals to the University of Alabama has the federal government seemed so at war with a state of the union.

Arkansas and Alabama were defying U.S. court orders to desegregate. But Barack Obama's war on Arizona is not a war of necessity. It is a war of choice – an unprovoked war, undertaken not to defend constitutional or civil rights, but to pander to his party's left and Hispanic voters.

New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, himself Hispanic, gave the game away. At the Boston governor's conference, he assured colleagues, nervous over the administration attacks on Arizona's immigration law, that "Obama is popular with Hispanic voters, and this is going to be a popular move with them nationally."

Eric Holder fended off criticism of his Justice Department suit against Arizona that alleges the state usurped federal responsibility by saying he has not ruled out a second suit for "racial profiling."

Rather than work with Arizona to secure the border and send the illegals home, the Obamaites are taking Mexico's side against Arizona, and against the faithful execution of U.S. law.

In a shocking and telling episode in the Rose Garden, Obama stood by mute as Felipe Calderon attacked the Arizona law as "discriminatory." The next day, Democrats in Congress, with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano joining in, cheered the Mexican president's slander that Arizona introduced "racial profiling to law enforcement."

There was a time when such an insult to a state of our union, on U.S. soil by a foreign ruler, would have produced a diplomatic crisis, if not pistols at dawn.

Get Pat Buchanan's classic, "The Death of the West," autographed at low price

Some of us recall Ike walking out of a Paris summit with Nikita Khrushchev rather than apologize for sending U-2s over Russia, and JFK, after the Bay of Pigs, retorting to Khrushchev that the United States did not need any lectures on intervention from people "whose character is forever stamped on the bloody streets of Budapest."

Democrats cheer as Arizona is attacked by a Mexican leader whose country treats illegal entry as a felony and illegal aliens with a brutality no American would tolerate.

And what exactly is at the heart of the Arizona law?

Simply this: Being in this country illegally is now a misdemeanor in Arizona, as it is in U.S. law. And as a 1940 U.S. law requires resident aliens to carry their green cards or work visas at all times, Arizona will require police to request such identification if, in a "lawful contact" – a traffic violation or altercation – the officer entertains a "reasonable suspicion" the individual may be here illegally.

Is this really Nazi Germany? Does this really justify the hysteria? And if this is the Gestapo, why did Holder not make this feature of the law the grounds for his Justice Department suit?

Answer: Calderon and Obama notwithstanding, racial profiling is prohibited by the Arizona law. Nor is there any evidence racial or ethnic profiling will be condoned by Arizona. The law has not even taken effect.

Unlike San Francisco and other towns that declare themselves to be "sanctuary cities" and refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities, Arizona is not challenging or usurping U.S. law, but trying to assist the U.S. government in enforcing the immigration laws.

Why is Arizona under attack for simply trying to help enforce our immigration laws? Because the Obama administration cannot, will not or does not even wish to see those laws enforced.

The U.S. government is today derelict in its constitutional duty.

And this is approaching an existential crisis for America. For there are in Arizona 450,000 illegal aliens, a population of lawbreakers in a single state approaching the size of the entire U.S. Army.

Though we have 15 million Americans unemployed, near 10 percent of our workforce, with a higher share of African-Americans jobless, we have 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs. And last year the administration handed out over a million green cards and work visas to foreigners to come and take jobs that would have gone to American citizens.

In communist countries in the Cold War, all understood that the government did not represent the people. The state was at war with the nation.

That idea is taking root in America – the idea that our government no longer seeks to represent us. And as one watches Obama and Congress take the side of a foreign leader attacking an American state, and the government refuse to do its duty and defend the borders or send the illegals back home, questions arise.

In this ongoing invasion of the United States that has brought 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens into our midst, whose side is the government on? Ours or theirs? What is the reason for the refusal to secure our border?

Why do Democrats insist that the illegal aliens be put on a "path to citizenship"?

Is the real objective the abolition of the old America we grew up in?

India Seeks 6 Subs, $11B

By Manu Sood Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 9:49 am
Posted in International, Naval, Policy

India’s Defense Minister A. K. Antony approved a new line of submarines — Project 75(I) — to be constructed in India at a cost of $11 billion. Our colleague Manu Sood, editor of the Indian defense website 8ak​.in, interviewed Bhupinder Yadav, who heads a small group of retired ex-servicemen at a defense and aerospace consulting company, Q-tech Synergy, to learn more.

8ak: How many submarines do the Indian Navy plan to have?

Yadav: The Indian Navy proposes to have a mix of twenty-four nuclear and conventional submarines of the SSK type. With six Scorpene and a further six Project-75(I) , the remaining 12 subs will be of an indigenous design.

The Indian navy is also planning to build micro-submarines for its strategic operations. An RFP was issued in Nov 2009 to Indian shipyards including Hindustan Shipyards Limited, ABG and Pipavav shipyards, Larsen & Toubro and state-owned Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL). Indian Navy is planning to get five of these vessels at a cost of about $80 million but the inductions can be doubled later on.

8ak: Why is the price almost US$2 billion per submarine whereas strategypage reports US$350 for an AIP submarine?

Yadav: The 2005, Scorpene diesel submarines deal was signed, with an option for six more and extensive technology transfer agreements was reported as being in excess of $4 billion. The Proj 75(I) is a $10.7  billion project for building six vessels. These will be new submarines and not the Scorpene, and it will be a bigger submarine with specific features with key differentiator being a new class of missiles, having some features from the HDW Type 214, the Russian Amur class, the Italian Fincantieri  S-1000 in collaboration with Rubin of Russia. The extra cost could be for the new design that will allow the incorporation of future technologies, stealth features, missiles, transfer of technology, Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) and land attack capabilities.

8ak: Why did India not go in for a nuclear submarine instead of diesel electric?

Yadav: The utility of conventional diesel-electric submarines with the introduction of AIP (air-independent propulsion) systems like the French company DCNS’ MESMA (Module d’Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) and German fuel cells,  the duration they can stay underwater can be increased substantially. They also have the added advantages of being smaller and cheaper than nuclear submarines. Another reason could have been the recent accident on submarines both in Russia and India.

8ak: Why are others like Fincanteri, BAE Systems and US manufacturers not in the deal?

Yadav: RFI was sent to French DCNS, Spanish Navantia, Russian Rubin, Italy’s Fincantieri and German HDW (now owned by Thyssenkrup). Great Britain and America only build nuclear submarines and not diesel electric.

8ak: The RFI was written up a couple of years ago, so why the delay?

Yadav: RFI  was issued  on 27 October 2008 for six diesel-electric attack submarines to be built in Indian shipyard, public or private, with special emphasis on full transfer of technology.  The subs were to be equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) boosting their operational capabilities to have high degree of stealth, land-attack capability and ability to incorporate futuristic technologies. Since this will be a new type of submarine, the details and processing of project of this size does take time. Beside 3 reasons which delayed the project.

• Some stray thoughts why not go for nuclear submarines, which has its own advantage and disadvantages such as vastly improved range and speeds, but are noisy hence no  stealthy operations.
• Time was also wasted on Pull and Push for this crucial programme by the public or private sector. Navy pressing to opt for a shipyard other than the Mazagon Docks, which has its hands full and has been delaying most of the projects.
• Some friendly countries have been trying to put pressure that the additional submarine be procured from them. Hence the delay in RFP.

8ak: Why is the Indian private sector so enthusiastic about this announcement?

Yadav: Public sector shipyards like Mazgaon dock are running at full capacity and behind schedule. L&T’s excellent performance in the construction of the nuclear submarine and smaller submarine projects has given the Navy and the ministries the confidence in the private sector’s ability to deliver quality vessels, systems and on deliver as per schedule. A minimum of one submarine will be built at a private shipyard and a some sub-systems will be supplied by the private sector boosting indigenous capabilities.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/14/india-seeks-6-subs-11b/#ixzz0trRz1GhN

Chatter Rises On Iran Strike

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 5:21 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy, Rumors

The first really clear indication that serious planning was underway to strike at Iran’s rogue nuclear weapons site came a month ago when British news outlets reported that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to cross its airspace en route to Iranian targets.

Yesterday, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said publicly that his country was willing to live with the consequences of a strike against Iran despite the enormous amount of trade between the two countries and the likelihood of riots after a strike.

Today, you have Sen. Joe Lieberman in Israel saying the U.S. would influence Iran, “through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must.”

Now Lieberman is one of Israel’s staunchest backers on Capitol Hill and is not commander in chief, so his comments can be taken with a grain of salt, but they also are a clear indicator that Israeli officials believe a strike is necessary. When the McChrystal fracas broke out, several senior retired and current military officers worried quietly that moving leaders at Central Command at such a sensitive time in Israeli-Iranian relations could leave the U.S. unfocused on a likely Israeli threat. The selection and rapid confirmation of Gen. David Petraeus alleviated some of those concerns but CentCom remains without a leader who has undergone Senate confirmation. While that may seem academic to many, Senate confirmation confers great credibility on a military leader and grants them wider discretion than an acting commander possesses, both in their own minds and in those of Congress and the executive branch.

Cautionary note: we are not predicting a strike, but a large number of public comments combined with the seeming acceleration of their number, can be an accurate indicator of military action.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/07/chatter-rises-on-iran-strike/#ixzz0trPcVzMM

Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

For Vets with PTSD, end of an unfair
process  By Eric Shinseki 

For 38 years, I was privileged to serve the men and
women entrusted with our nation's security. The
character of their service is reflected in something
called The Soldier's Creed. Most everyone I have met
who is familiar with its four key lines agrees that
they define the essence of uniformed service:

I will always place the mission first;

I will never accept defeat;

I will never quit;

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

Four simple, declaratory statements — promises that
form the foundation for trust within military
formations.

Especially in time of war, those who wear our
nation's uniforms and their families bear incredible

burdens for us. A new generation faces the demand
for courage, strength, dedication and stamina — as
daunting today as it has ever been. Failure is never
an option. Our service members have never failed the
nation, the mission, or their comrades.

But the toll for this kind of loyalty and dedication is
high. Troops are returning with invisible wounds
that can be as debilitating as any physical battlefield
trauma. As in every conflict in our nation's history,
today's warriors are suffering emotional injuries just
as they do physical ones.

The residual effects of combat manifest themselves
in every combatant's life. You have to be strong to
prevail. You must be loved, respected and
supported to weather the worst of the storms. You
must be patient, and it helps to be lucky. And you
must have the strong, unwavering support of the
nation that sent you on those missions.

At the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) there is
only one goal — to ensure that veterans of every
generation receive the best possible health care and
the benefits they have earned.

Previously, veterans filing for health care and
disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) were required to document in detail the
causes of their symptoms. These have traditionally
been called "stressors."

The rules stringently required veterans, who served
in the combat branches of the military, where the
likelihood of direct action against an armed enemy

was highest, to provide detailed documentation of
those engagements. For those not serving in the
combat branches, the burden of proof was even
higher. But in either case, these rules were neither
fair nor sustainable.

At VA, we're now moving to treat all veterans
equally. Today, VA begins simplifying the process
by which veterans with PTSD are able to access
health care and receive benefits.

Streamlining this process will help not just the
veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom, but generations of veterans who have
previously "borne the battle" for our nation.

We're publishing a regulation today in the Federal
Register that simplifies the process for claiming
service connection for PTSD by reducing the
documentation needed for veterans to validate the
specifics of place, type and circumstance of
incident. From this point forward, VA will not
require corroboration of a PTSD stressor related to
fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, if a VA
doctor confirms a diagnosis of PTSD and the
stressful experience recalled by the veteran
adequately supports that diagnosis.

This decision to simplify the process has been
validated by an Institute of Medicine study, which
concluded that service in a war zone is inherently
linked to increased risk of PTSD.

As President Obama has said, "Just as we have a
solemn responsibility to train and equip our troops
before we send them into harm's way, we have a
solemn responsibility to provide our veterans and
wounded warriors with the care and benefits they've
earned when they come home. That is our sacred
trust with all who serve — and it doesn't end when
their tour of duty does."

In Profiles in Courage, President John F. Kennedy,
himself a combat veteran, noted, "Without belittling
the courage with which men have died, we should
not forget those acts of courage with which men ...
have lived. The courage of life ... is no less a
magnificent mixture of triumph and tragedy."

The courage to deal with the effects of battle is real,
and it takes courage and determination to mitigate
its effects once we return from operations. It has
been so for every generation of warriors.

Simplifying the documentation needed to receive
medical care and compensation for service
connected to PTSD upholds our commitment to
those who protect our freedoms — not just the
veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq, but all generations
of veterans, who proudly served and sacrificed in
their time.

Eric Shinseki is secretary of the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs.

ARIZONA IS ATTEMPTING TO DO WHAT THE FEDS SHOULD HAVE DONE

Georgie Ann Geyer 06/28/2010

WASHINGTON -- Of all the idiotic things happening in our beloved but confused country, perhaps the most idiotic of all is that the White House says the administration is going to sue the state of Arizona over its recent law to control illegal immigration.

Our national leaders are going to try to prove that Arizona, which is being inundated by mostly Mexican illegals, is itself illegally taking over the job of the federal government -- and if that isn't a laugh, one wonders what is?

The federal government officially has the job of defending the borders, but it has been as somnolent about that responsibility as Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Mark Sanford have been about their marital vows. So we are now faced with the anomaly that the federal government will be suing a state for doing what the federal government should be sued for NOT doing!

Actually, the Justice Department would challenge the Arizona law on the basis of whether it could lead to civil rights violations, despite the fact that the law as written is clear that no one should be asked for his or her ID information unless the person has already at least appeared to have committed an abuse.

What's more, the Arizonans wrote into their law that businesses should be fined for hiring illegals. But that already was one of the major points of the Immigration Reform and Control Act passed by the Congress in 1986 -- indeed, the act made hiring "undocumented" workers a crime -- but the law was never observed or enforced.

"The amnesty dealt with illegals who were already here," then-attorney general Edwin Meese III was recently quoted in The Wall Street Journal. "The rest of the '86 act was intended to get control of the problem so we didn't have any more coming in."

That law of '86 remains at the heart of the problem. It was supposed to be the "last amnesty." Three million illegal aliens were provided with citizenship, but that was "it"! The present-day amnesty idea floating around the political stratosphere today is as flagrant a flouting of that '86 law as anything could be; today's new amnesty should really be called a call to "open borders," for that is what it would be.

It is noteworthy that Barack Obama, who needs the votes of more Americans for next fall's elections, should have his mind so set on punishing Arizona, for the vast majority of Americans want not amnesty for the 11 million to 20 million illegals in the country today, but a stop entirely to illegal immigration.

From one end of the country to the other, individuals, states and cities are coming forward to support, and in some cases repeat, Arizona's law. According to polls, Sixty percent of Americans approve the law, as well as 70 percent of Arizonans.

The Democrats in the Senate illustrate the passion of this policy question by the fact that they have now come up with a legislative "framework" that would expand the Border Patrol considerably, triple fines against U.S. employers that hire illegals, and even require all American workers to get new Social Security cards linked to fingerprints for work eligibility. This Democratic "answer" compares very closely to Republican John McCain's.

So if someone can respond to exactly why President Obama is not trying to take over this important constituency, rather than to antagonize it, it seems to me that the only answer is ideology, particularly since he has filled his administration with pro-immigration people, some of them from the far-left National Council of La Raza, for many years the spokesman for illegal aliens.

But there is little indication that Arizona is stopping with the law on immigration. The Republican governor, Jan Brewer, and many other politicians have moved on to "ethnic studies" in the schools. This has long been one of the favorite holdouts of the pro-illegal immigration groups, and it shows the degree to which they really want to change the entire way of thinking of this Hispanic generation.

The bill, already signed by the governor, prohibits courses that promote resentment toward one race, that are designed for students of one race, that "promote ethnic solidarity instead of treating students as individuals" or that encourage "the overthrow of the United States government."

The funny thing here is that it is the supposed "conservatives" who are against ethnic studies because students should "not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," according to a spokesman for the governor, and who appear to be the real liberals. The "liberals" who are for ethnic studies thus come across as approving teaching that races are different and that struggle is inevitable.

The whole conflict is really a shame, because it seems so clear that illegal immigration is just that, "illegal," and that should be the end to it. If the federal government did its part, no one state would have to do anything. It also seems clear that ethnic studies only encourage differences and more conflict; anyone can study that on his or her own time. Public schools should teach the American history and culture that unites us, instead of focusing on what divides us.

A new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and wheelchairs

Advances Transformation Toward a Paperless VA

WASHINGTON – Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki announced today plans to develop a fully automated, online system for handling Veterans’ disability compensation claims. More than a simple digitization of existing paper-based claims, the new system is part of VA’s modernization of the end-to-end processing workflow.  Automation will substantially reduce processing time and increase accuracy while simplifying the way that Veterans interact with the claims process. 

“This new program accelerates our effort to eliminate the claims backlog through automation and modernization of our systems,” said Secretary Shinseki.  “It’s another step in transforming VA into a 21^st Century department that better serves our Veterans.”

“Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) has been advocating for substantial process change in adjudicating Veterans’ claims for many years,” said Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs of VVA. “We’re very pleased to see that this Administration is taking on the problem of claims processing head on. This automated program will make a big difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Veterans.”

Veterans exposed to herbicides while serving in the Republic of Vietnam who today have B-cell leukemia (hairy-cell leukemia), Parkinson’s disease, or ischemic heart disease are slated to be the first users of the automated system. The final regulation implementing the presumption of service connection for these three diseases is poised to become effective later this year.  While the first use of the new system will be limited to this pending subset of disabilities, usage will expand over time to include claims for other conditions.

The new system will guide Veterans through automated, program-assisted menus to capture the information and medical evidence that will drive faster claims decisions.  In the initial configuration, VA estimates the new system may assist as many as 100,000 Veterans.

As part of the implementation of the new claims system, VA has awarded a $9.1 million development contract to Bethesda, Md.,-based IBM.  The IBM team will work closely with VA developers and will implement the online application system by November, permitting Veterans easier and faster access to VA and more accurate and quick claims processing for the initial set of qualifying conditions. 

The new system, funded by the VA Innovation Initiative, represents one of several efforts VA has underway to transform the department into a 21^st Century organization.  As a first step in integrating new technologies into claims processing, it represents a significant step towards meeting VA’s goal to “break the back of the claims backlog” and provide all Veterans with high quality decisions on their claims in no more than 125 days.

More than 13,000 active-duty Army soldiers -- the equivalent of four combat brigades -- are sidelined as unfit for war because of injury, illness, or mental stress. David Wood Chief Military Correspondent Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com/bloggers/david-wood/

In an unmistakable sign that the Army is struggling with exhaustion after nine years of fighting, combat commanders whose units are headed to Afghanistan increasingly choose to leave behind soldiers who can no longer perform, putting additional strain on those who still can.

The growing pool of "non-deployable'' soldiers make up roughly 10 percent of the 116,423 active-duty soldiers currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more Army reservists and National Guard soldiers are also considered unfit to deploy, a growing burden on an Army that has sworn to care for them as long as needed.

"These 13,000 soldiers, that number's not going to go away. If anything, it's going to get larger as the Army continues the [deployment] tempo it's on,'' said Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek, who heads the Army's Warrior Transition Command, which oversees the treatment and disposition of unfit soldiers.

"This is an Army at war,'' he explained.

Among these "non-deployable'' soldiers are those recuperating from combat wounds, some severe, and various forms of brain injury. Far more numerous are soldiers with non-battle conditions, including cases of coronary disease, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, acute anxiety, kidney disease, leukemia, chronic back pain and dozens of other maladies. Sometimes, these cases are complicated by drug or alcohol abuse, according to senior Army officers and internal Pentagon documents.

The Army is struggling to diagnose and treat this huge pool of unfit soldiers, helping to enable those with the desire and ability to return to their units, and assisting others to transition into civilian life. But more soldiers are pouring into the pool than are going out, leaving the Army scrambling to house, supervise, and treat them.

"We are seeing the cumulative effects of years of war -- and they are cumulative, the physical and the mental,'' explained Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff. With the growing number of unfit soldiers, the Army has been forced to send into combat units manned "at less than 90 percent,'' Casey told reporters in May.
"That is not a good place to be.''
Even with the manpower shortage, combat commanders increasingly are casting off soldiers who have physical or mental health issues, drug or alcohol problems or a history of bad behavior, Army officials said.

The number of soldiers left home by combat units has doubled since 2007, to an average of 135 for each deploying brigade combat team of about 3,500 soldiers, the Army acknowledged. Three years ago an average of 67 soldiers per brigade were being left behind. Deploying combat units are also leaving behind soldiers who are disciplinary problems at a rate 43 percent higher than in 2007, according to Army data.

About 5,000 of the 13,000 troops have serious medical and mental problems. They have been detached from their combat brigades and housed in the Army's Warrior Transition Units. Established in 2007 to care for battle wounded, these units are instead filled mostly with non-battle wounded troops. The other 8,000 non-deployable soldiers are simply left behind under the nominal care of their combat brigade's rear detachment, which has neither the time nor the expertise to supervise soldiers struggling with behavioral or health problems or other issues, Army officers said.

Within this population of 13,000 unfit troops are genuine combat wounded soldiers -- about 10 percent -- as well as those who have fallen ill on deployment, or succumbed to chronic knee or back problems exacerbated over three or four year-long combat tours.

But non-deployables also include some who are faking combat stress in order to win lucrative compensation and a fast ticket out of the Army, according to senior Army officers and senior NCOs who work in Wounded Warrior units.

Other soldiers, senior officers acknowledge, should never have been allowed into the Army in the first place because they have chronic physical or mental problems not discovered when they were recruited, or because they are ill-suited to military life.

"In all honesty, a lot of our unit commanders have found a lot of guys that they perhaps didn't want to take with them'' to combat, said Cheek, an artillery officer educated at West Point and who won a Bronze Star during a combat tour in Afghanistan.

"There are probably some commanders who... probably transferred (out) some guys that maybe should have had disciplinary actions taken'' against them.

Fallout from Walter Reed

The U.S. military, perhaps more than any other force in history, has gone to extreme lengths to take care of its troops. Or at least it has since February 2007, when the Washington Post broke a series of stories about severely wounded combat soldiers who were neglected and ill-treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Army' premier medical facility.

The Army was stung to the core by the Walter Reed scandal, because its neglect of soldiers had violated one of its most sacred ethics: in the words of the Soldiers Creed, "I will never leave a fallen comrade.''

Pressed by angry outcries from Congress and the public, the Army has scampered to take care of its battle-wounded soldiers and every other soldier with a physical or mental problem, as well as others with undiagnosed complaints.

"We have all kinds, and the policy is we really don't care where you got your injury, we're more concerned with the nature and seriousness of it and where's the best place for this soldier to recover,'' said Cheek.

Four months after the Walter Reed scandal broke, the Army had set up its Warrior Transition Units (WTUs), where ill soldiers are assigned to platoons, companies and battalions so sergeants can help them plan and track their treatment. There are 29 such units at military bases across the country and in Germany.

They aim to treat the "whole'' soldier. The staff of the WTUs and related facilities, including nurses, physical and occupational therapists, medical coordinators, surgeons, chaplains and social workers, work with the soldier-patients to devise detailed treatment plans. Patients also sets goals for financial and family stability, housing, education, and future employment for those leaving the service. Progress toward those goals is monitored weekly.

This kind of attention is demanding, even for the Warrior Transition Unit at Fort Drum, N.Y., the home of the continually deploying 10^th Mountain Division. The Fort Drum Warrior Transition Unit, housed in a sparkling new, state-of-the-art barracks, has a staff of 155 for its 302 patients. But WTU officials and staff say that the battle wounded -- only about one in 10 WTU patients -- take up the least amount of time.

Soldiers with combat wounds tend to be better behaved, more intent on healing, more self-reliant, and more likely to take charge of their own recuperation. "They're more grateful to still be here,'' said Staff Sgt. Tiffany Compton of Houston, Texas, a squad leader at the WTU at Fort Drum, N.Y.

Another squad leader at Fort Drum recalled the soldier with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) from repeated exposure to concussive blasts. "He was desperate to get back to duty,'' said Staff Sgt. Charles Anderson, who was asked to work at the WTU after being wounded in Iraq. "He really learned how to help himself, took charge. He worked with the TBI clinic here, he used all the tools we have, and he got better. He went back to Fort Hood and rejoined his unit.

"Ten years ago he would have gotten lost in the system somewhere,'' said Anderson. "Seeing him go back, that's a success story we like to see.''

Soldiers with mental health problems can require more complex and longer treatment and need more attention. PFC Daniel Hudman, 19, deployed to Afghanistan with the 10^th Mountain Division's 1^st Brigade this spring and was sent home almost immediately with what he said was PTSD and major depression. Hudman is currently a patient at the WTU.

"I couldn't handle it (being in Afghanistan),'' Hudman told me. "I wasn't ready.'' He said his father had recently passed away and that he was in a custody battle with his wife. His treatment has given him new ways of "dealing with my stress and my anger and hatred,'' he said.
On several occasions, he has been allowed to travel from Fort Drum in northern New York to see his six-month-old son, in Long Island, N.Y. He said the WTU always sends staff members with him -- a seven-hour drive, one-way.

Among the other non-battle injured patients in the WTUs are soldiers like Spec. Roland Peacock, 38, who ran truck convoys in Iraq and Kuwait and was medevacked with medical problems he declined to identify. "I didn't want to come, I didn't want to be here,'' he said. "I didn't want to put a burden on my other soldiers.''

"Hopefully, I'll get my medical problem solved and get back to duty,'' he said. Meantime, he added, "They're taking real good care of me here.''

Soldiers like Peacock are easier to handle, the staff says, because they are intent on healing.

A 'Dumping Ground' for Some

But squad leaders and others who work inside the WTUs say they are filling up with the undeserving -- discipline problems and malingerers. Rather than being processed out of the Army, many of them are sent to the WTU, and they are in no hurry to leave.
"You can chapter out a soldier who doesn't adapt'' to Army life, said Fort Drum squad leader Compton. "More often now guys'll send that soldier over here and say he's got post-traumatic stress. They tend to overlook a lot of soldier misbehavior here and chalk it up to PTSD or multiple deployments.''

WTU squad leaders, who are hand-picked and extensively trained to work with difficult patients, work long and punishing days and are often called out for emergencies after hours. "You do get to go home at night, but that doesn't mean you get to stay there all night,'' said Lt. Col. Patrick Harvey, who commands the Fort Drum WTU.

Almost every weekend, squad leaders get called out because one of their patients has been involved in a drug or alcohol-related incident on base.

"Many of them never should have come to the WTU -- they should have been separated'' from the Army, Compton said. "These soldiers don't want to be rehabbed, they're just going through the motions. Should never have been in the Army in the first place.''

"A lot of money is spent on soldiers who just don't want to go back to their units,'' said squad leader Anderson.

The WTUs have become "a dumping ground for people commanders don't want to deploy with,'' said Noel Koch, who until this spring was deputy under secretary of defense for wounded warrior care and transition policy for Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

An internal Pentagon report observed that WTUs are "burdened with soldiers placed in them by commanders as an expedient means by which to rid their units of their 'undesirables.' This is counter to the fundamental objective of providing the best possible care for Wounded Warriors.''

Mixing combat-wounded soldiers with these others has created some tensions, Pentagon officials said. Another internal Pentagon report said that "combat-wounded [patients] express concern that they may be associated with those [patients] who stay for long periods of time and 'milk the system,''' for benefits.

To alleviate such concerns, the Warrior Transition Unit at Fort Hood, Texas, has built separate facilities for combat-wounded soldiers.
"I'm kind of in favor of that,'' Cheek told me, keeping a clear distinction between combat-wounded and the others. "Because what I don't want to have, and what I have had, is a guy with acid reflux disease going to ring the bell at the opening of the New York Stock Exchange and portraying himself to America as a wounded warrior.''

Less is known about the 8,000 soldiers who left to their rear detachments. Lt. Col. Harvey, who once served as a rear detachment commander, said it was almost impossible to keep track of his medically non-deployable soldiers and their treatment plans.

"All your medical people go with the unit when it deploys,'' he explained. "I'm an infantry officer. I knew where my non-deployables all were, but I didn't know what came next in their treatment.''

The Army is tightening up its supervision of the 8,000 non-deployable soldiers not assigned to WTUs. But it's a work in progress, officials said.

"It's not a perfect program, and with some of the complex conditions [of soldiers] we're not always going to get it right. But we're going to keep trying,'' said Cheek. "Overall, we've got a fantastic program that supports the Army at war very well. We have a lot more to be proud of than to be ashamed of, and we're going to do even better.''

Cheek said the Army recognizes the importance not just of taking care of all its sick, wounded and ill soldiers, but of being seen as taking good care of all its soldiers. Even if, as Cheek allowed, the Army is harboring a few malingerers who are just milking the system for what they can get.

Why don't you just throw out the fakes and misfits? I asked Cheek.

"We have medical professionals whose job is to figure them out,'' Cheek told me. "If a guy slips through a crack or gets one over on us, he'll have to live with himself. We might believe he is a malingerer, and we might be completely wrong.''

But the Army is a volunteer organization, he reminded me, dependent on the willingness of young Americans to commit themselves to the military.

"And if we are seen as casting away or discarding the young Americans who volunteer to serve,'' he said, " it won't be long before we don't have enough volunteers.''

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program.

Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low. The cut went into effect Friday, even as the Senate approved a six-month reprieve. The House has approved a different bill.

• The American Academy of Family Physicians says 13% of respondents didn't participate in Medicare last year, up from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004.

• The American Osteopathic Association says 15% of its members don't participate in Medicare and 19% don't accept new Medicare patients. If the cut is not reversed, it says, the numbers will double.

• The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.

The federal health insurance program for seniors paid doctors on average 78% of what private insurers paid in 2008.

"Physicians are saying, 'I can't afford to keep losing money,' " says Lori Heim, president of the family doctors' group.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says 97% of doctors accept Medicare. The agency doesn't know how many have refused to take new Medicare patients, Deputy Administrator Jonathan Blum says. "Medicare beneficiaries have good access to physician services. We do have concerns about access to primary care physicians."

The AARP, the nation's largest consumer group representing seniors, is taking notice. Some U.S. areas already face a shortage of primary care physicians. Policy director John Rother says the trend away from Medicare threatens to make it worse.

States are starting to see a flight from Medicare:

•In Illinois, 18% of doctors restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice, according to a medical society survey.

•In North Carolina, 117 doctors have opted out of Medicare since January, the state's medical society says.

•In New York, about 1,100 doctors have left Medicare. Even the medical society president isn't taking new Medicare patients.

"I'm making a statement," says Leah McCormack, a New York City dermatologist. "Many physicians are really being forced out of private practice."

Florida has the highest percentage of Medicare patients, and most doctors can't afford to leave the program. But "the level of frustration has been higher this year than I've ever seen it before," says Linda McMullen of the Florida Medical Association.