May 19, 2012

Thoughts Prompted By The Red Sox Foundation's Association With "Run To Home Base"

On Sunday, the Red Sox Foundation will hold its annual fundraiser for Run to Home Base. I wrote about this event back in June 2010, and I am reposting those thoughts today:
Thoughts Prompted By The Red Sox Foundation's Association With "Run To Home Base"

In May, the Red Sox Foundation, along with Massachusetts General Hospital, was promoting the Run to Home Base program, which is raising money to "provide much needed services to local veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan ... with combat stress disorders and/or traumatic brain injuries".

It's hard to find fault with the group's mission statement:
Raising money for combat stress disorders and/or traumatic brain injury is the core mission of the Run to Home Base 9K. ... This program includes four components: confidential clinical care, outreach to veteran's families who are affected by these "signature wounds" of war, innovative research and educational programs for health providers, clergy, social workers and others. ... Our mission is to help these veterans obtain the care they need and deserve.
A RAND Corporation study from two years ago -- "Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery" -- estimated that 300,000 US troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 have had possible traumatic brain injuries. Only about half of those men and women have sought treatment.

The Red Sox's involvement in Run To Home Base is a very good thing and will help a lot of people. However, the team often glorifies the military, with fly-overs on Opening Day, singing God Bless America, or having a former soldier throw out the first pitch, after being thanked for "protecting our way of life". For the past week or two, the Red Sox's website has featured an Army recruitment ad ("When Opportunity Calls") with Jon Lester.*

* Expressing support for the military is the default setting for mainstream society, part of our normal discourse. However, speaking out against military activities -- or simply mentioning a few facts -- well, that's injecting politics into the world of sports, and could we please just focus on the game for a few hours, Mr. Bleeding Heart? I cannot begin to tell you how much this pisses me off.

There is also the issue of why any money needs to be raised for these veterans at all. Does the US military not have the cash on hand to properly care for the men and women it sends halfway around the world to do its conquering and killing? Apparently not. From years-long shortages in essential body armour to a lack of drinking water (in the desert!) to non-existent care once they return home -- or actually billing soldiers injured in the line of duty -- it is an incontestable fact that the US's treatment of its soldiers is inhumane and criminal.

And it is a story as old as the country itself. The United States has never given a shit about its veterans. They are like tissues -- use 'em up and throw them away.

NPR reports that tens of thousands of US soldiers who have suffered traumatic brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan are receiving little or no treatment. Many of the military's tests miss close to half of all brain injuries. And relevant information is often not put the soldier's permanent medical file -- oops! -- which makes it next to impossible to get any treatment months or years later.

In 2009, retired Army psychiatrist Charles Hoge wrote about the "illusory demands" of traumatic brain injuries in the New England Journal of Medicine and he worried that the military would be hobbled by the price for unnecessary treatment. One VA psychologist ordered her staff to not diagnose anyone with post-traumatic stress disorder so the Army could save some money.

Michelle Dyarman, a former major in the Army reserves, was involved in two roadside bomb attacks and a Humvee accident in Iraq in 2005. Dyarman was the first person in her Pennsylvania family to attend college, but she now struggles to read the newspaper. She often cannot remember the address of the farmhouse where she grew up. Her father reminds her to turn the oven on before cooking. She has been fighting with the Army for five years to first get them to acknowledge her injury and then to get treatment.
I always put the military first, even before my family and friends. ... I served my country. Now what's my country doing for me?
In 2008, the US was spending $12 billion every month in Iraq. That amount has apparently dropped to about $7.3 billion per month. (And well over $1 trillion has been "lost".) Think of how much help US veterans could get with even a fraction of those billions -- of course, if the US hadn't decided "Let's take over this part of the world to enrich ourselves!", they wouldn't be injured (or dead).

I've got an idea: Maybe the US could take some of the hundreds of millions of dollars it openly admits it is giving to the Taliban and use that to care for the men and women it sent into war.

Can anyone argue with that? Or am I being too political?

16 comments:

laura k said...

Thank you for reposting this. In my opinion, it's among the best pieces you've ever written.

Tom DePlonty said...

Regardless of one's political opinions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: it should be clear that the way the U.S. government has treated soldiers suffering from TBI and PTSD has been shameful and unjust.

allan said...

And that has been the case all the way back to the Revolutionary War. In every single instance for the last 235+ years, the military and the sitting government has systematically screwed over, mistreated, or simply forgotten its veterans.

9casey said...

And that has been the case all the way back to the Revolutionary War.


And young men and women , besides the draft, still voulunteer and sign up..

That is neither an opinon or a statement to further this discussion. It is merely a fact.

They know what can happen to them and how others have been treated and they still sign up, I dont think I have that in me, but I am thankful to those that do.

laura k said...

They know what can happen to them and how others have been treated

9C, with respect, this is incorrect. I doubt you have read about, listened to or interviewed as many veterans as I have. From what I've learned, few - if any - know what they are in for when they sign up.

Maxwell Horse said...

If I were a Red Sox player I think I'd have a very hard time deciding whether or not I'd want to participate in all these Red Sox sponsored things that--let's face it--glorify war, glorify the agendas of the Dick Cheney's of the world, and just about every evil thing our "leaders" do. There are many ways to help people, even ways that would help soldiers indirectly--but the way the Sox do it are just about the most lunk-headed, "Love it or leave it" ways you can.

So many people hold the view that the soldiers are heroes, yet at the same time what the soldiers are asked to participate in is criminal. I'm sorry, but I cannot pretzel my mind into such double-think. I can certainly pity soldiers who are killing themselves to aid evil agendas, but that's a far cry from actually enabling and championing that Orwellian paradigm.

If I were a Sox player, I don't see how I could "respectfully decline" participation in certain team-sanctioned events without eventually being called out as a Freedom-hating pariah by the press.

laura k said...

So many people hold the view that the soldiers are heroes, yet at the same time what the soldiers are asked to participate in is criminal. I'm sorry, but I cannot pretzel my mind into such double-think.

The soldiers are not heroes - and I have no idea on earth why they would be thought of as heroes - but they are victims.

Nice use of pretzel as a verb!

Maxwell Horse said...

The soldiers are not heroes - and I have no idea on earth why they would be thought of as heroes - but they are victims.

It's strange (and oddly empowering) to hear someone just flat out say this. I don't think I've ever heard anyone--even anti-war "liberals"--state things like this. Maybe it's because they actually believe the Orwellian slant, or it's because social pressure is making them say something they don't privately believe--but people seem to always hold that view that I mentioned. (I mean people that aren't flat-out pro-war.) You know, believing both these things at the same time: (a) the soldiers are heroes and they are protecting our way of life, (b) the actions of the soldiers and the wars they enable are evil and have nothing to do with protecting our way of life.

Maybe if the troops weren't being used as symbolic human shields during every other baseball game (can't critize the power structure without also saying you hate these heroes) the U.S. wouldn't be heading off the cliff like it is.

laura k said...

It's strange (and oddly empowering) to hear someone just flat out say this. I don't think I've ever heard anyone--even anti-war "liberals"--state things like this. Maybe it's because they actually believe the Orwellian slant, or it's because social pressure is making them say something they don't privately believe--but people seem to always hold that view that I mentioned.

There is definitely enormous social pressure to "support the troops", whatever that means, even if you oppose the war.

But clearly no war in my lifetime (I'm soon to be 51) was ever fought to protect the US "way of life". And certainly no recent war has anything to do with self-defense or self-protection. So what makes them heroes?

However, I generally see the soldiers as victims, and in that sense, they need full support - health care, therapy, family support. These basics are often denied them.

And of course I support every soldier's right to STOP FIGHTING and leave the military, and to speak out against war if they choose. The US govt routinely denies them these basic human rights.

allan said...

Re "supporting the troops"

I hate the twitsed logic of supporting the troops but being against the war. It literally makes no sense.

If I do not agree with the wars (and the cultural destruction, torture, and terrorism, etc.), why would I offer my support for the people who are carrying out that destruction?

laura k said...

Lucky for most Americans, it's easy to support the troops. All you do is buy a magnet.

laura k said...

The discussion that followed the original JoS post is very good.

Jere said...

An observance:

During every Red Sox game, for this year and going back to at least last year, they have a military person get special recognition. They are made to stand on top of the home dugout, while their name and info (usually Iraq/Afghanistan tours) is read over the PA and they're shown on the big board. This person routinely gets the biggest cheer of the night (way more than any player) and a complete standing ovation.

Also during every Red Sox game, during the pre-game ceremony, they announce a "blood donor of the game," who gets to stand out on the field. This person gets a golf clap.

Jere said...

I meant "observation," not "observance."

johngoldfine said...

The self-righteous sentimentality of "supporting the troops" is the exact flip side of the casual cruelty with which we treat wounded veterans, PTSD cases, Agent Orange survivors, and so on.

I think we imagine (very conveniently) that if we 'support' them, our duty and responsibility are pretty much discharged.

laura k said...

This person routinely gets the biggest cheer of the night (way more than any player) and a complete standing ovation.

Also during every Red Sox game, during the pre-game ceremony, they announce a "blood donor of the game," who gets to stand out on the field. This person gets a golf clap.


So giving (literally) of yourself to save lives < killing.