This week in Legion History:
·
Aug. 18, 1921:
A delegation of 200 American Legion members – who had traveled
from the United States to France to dedicate a war memorial at Flirey,
place a flag at the tomb of France’s unknown soldier and to meet with
Marshal Ferdinand Foch – unveil a marble and bronze plaque in the town
of St. Die-des-Vosges to commemorate the location
where the name “America” was first published on a map, in 1507. The
town, which called itself the godmother of America, took great pride in
its place in history.
·
Aug. 19, 1975:
The American Legion announces a major fundraising collaboration
with the American Cancer Society. The program has three main thrusts:
education about early detection and treatment of cancer, service and
assistance for sufferers and research.
·
Aug. 19, 2009:
Midland, Mich., Post 165 sweeps the field, wrapping up The American
Legion Baseball World Series championship with an 11-4 victory over
Medford, Ore., Post 15. For the first time ever, the series is streamed
live on legion.org, the newly revamped national website. Over five days, more than 18,900 viewers logged on to watch
the 83rd American Legion World Series online.
·
Aug. 20, 1950:
A new American Legion National Headquarters building is dedicated
in Indianapolis. The 100,000-square-foot $2.5 million structure greatly
expands capacity for the nation’s largest veterans organization, on
State of Indiana property known as “American Legion Mall.”
·
Aug. 22, 1941: The U.S. Navy commissions the USS
American Legion, and her World War II career begins, including
landing some of the first troops at Guadalcanal, supplying a hospital,
conducting rescue missions and training exercises.
American Legion receives two battle stars during World War II before she is decommissioned in 1946 and sold for scrap two years later.
·
Aug. 22, 2009:
Harrisburg Post 472 in Houston, Texas, begins a six-year winning
streak at The American Legion Nation Convention Color Guard Contest.
The six-year run ties Speedway Post 500 in Indiana for most continuous
national titles in the contest, which claimed it from 1993 to 1998.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
·
CNN:
US intelligence indicates Iran paid
bounties to Taliban for targeting American troops in Afghanistan
·
Military Times:
No
coalition casualties as US troops, SDF, return fire on pro-Syrian regime forces in Syria, officials say
·
Military Times:
Post
Office officials backtrack on service changes that delayed veterans’ prescriptions
If you wish to be removed from this email list, kindly email me at
mseavey@legion.org with “Remove from Daily Clips” in the subject line. If you have received this from someone who forwarded it and would
like to be added, email me at mseavey@legion.org and I will promptly add you to the list, that you might get the daily American Legion News.
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 08/17/20 11:15 PM EDT 204
President Trump said Monday night that he rejected a
proposal from the Pentagon to cut military health care by $2.2 billion during the pandemic.
The president tweeted his rebuke hours after Politico
reported that Department of Defense officials were suggesting cutting health care over the next five years as part of Secretary Mark Esper’s
cost-cutting initiatives.
“A proposal by
Pentagon officials to slash Military Healthcare by $2.2 billion dollars
has been firmly and totally rejected by me,” Trump tweeted. “We will do
nothing to
hurt our great Military professionals & heroes as long as I am your
President. Thank you!”
The Pentagon did not immediately return a request for comment.
Under the
proposal, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness would need to save $2.2 billion in military health, a
number officials settled on
after months of discussions during the cost-cutting review, a defense
official told Politico.
Two other
senior defense officials told the news outlet that the effort was rushed
and would impact the 9.5 million active-duty personnel, military
retirees and their families
that depend on the military health care.
Esper and his deputies reportedly argued that the private health care system can fill in the gap of the budget cuts.
The military
health system runs hundreds of facilities worldwide and operates TRICARE
which allows members to receive civilian health care outside of the
military network.
Pentagon
spokesperson Lisa Lawrence told Politico that the system "continually
assesses how it can most effectively align its assets in support of the
National Defense Strategy."
"The MHS will
not waver from its mission to provide a ready medical force and a
medically ready force," Lawrence said. "Any potential changes to the
health system will only
be pursued in a manner that ensures its ability to continue to support
the Department’s operational requirements and to maintain our
beneficiaries access to quality health care."
Updated 7:48 AM ET, Mon August 17, 2020
Washington (CNN)US
intelligence agencies assessed that Iran offered bounties to Taliban
fighters for
targeting American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, identifying
payments linked to at least six attacks carried out by the
militant group just last year alone, including a suicide bombing at a
US air base in December, CNN has learned.
"Bounties"
were paid by a foreign government, identified to CNN as Iran, to the
Haqqani network -- a terrorist
group that is led by the second highest ranking leader of the Taliban
-- for their attack on Bagram Air Base on December 11, which killed two
civilians and injured more than 70 others, including four US personnel,
according to a Pentagon briefing document
reviewed by CNN.
The name of the foreign government that made these payments remains classified but two sources familiar with the
intelligence confirmed to CNN that it refers to Iran.
The US killed
a key Iranian general in
Iraq less than a month after the Bagram attack but after a lengthy
process involving several agencies to develop options
aimed at countering Iran's support for militant groups in Afghanistan.
The decision was made in March not to take specific action as officials
did not want to jeopardize the peace process with the Taliban, according
to multiple sources familiar.
The revelation that Iran might have paid the Taliban follows the controversy
over Russian bounties for attacks on American troops, an issue that has been consistently downplayed by the Trump administration in recent weeks.
Russia has denied the allegation.
The lack of public condemnation of Iran or the Taliban and the decision not to pursue a diplomatic or military
response also highlights the administration's apparent desire to protect peace talks with the Taliban -- which culminated
in an agreement that was signed in February -- at all costs with the goal of helping Trump fulfill his long-stated campaign promise of removing
American troops from Afghanistan.
Sophisticated attack rattled officials
The
attack at Bagram, which is regarded as the most prominent US military
installation in Afghanistan, was highly
sophisticated and rattled officials working on Afghanistan matters
because it highlighted vulnerabilities of some of the American
compounds, according to one source involved in the Taliban peace
efforts.
Specifically,
the Pentagon briefing document noted that a suicide vehicle-borne
improvised explosive devices (SVBIED)
was used in the attack. Roughly 10 Taliban fighters engaged in a
firefight with local security forces after the explosion and were
ultimately killed by US airstrikes.
That
sentiment was also factored into assessments by US intelligence
officials from the CIA, Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA), and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in the
days after the attack, according to documents obtained by CNN.
"Based
on the nature of the attack and agreed upon bounties," the December
attack likely met the criteria for reimbursement,
the Pentagon briefing document, which was provided to the Secretary of
Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just days after the
incident occurred, states.
While
US intelligence officials acknowledge that the Haqqani Network would
not necessarily require payment in exchange
for targeting American troops, the internal Pentagon document reviewed
by CNN notes that the funding linked to the December 11 attack at Bagram
"probably incentivizes future high-profile attacks on US and Coalition
forces."
Iran
has long been known to use proxies for conducting attacks throughout
the region but in the months following
December's bombing at Bagram, US officials across several agencies were
tasked with investigating Tehran's relationship with the Haqqani
Network in Afghanistan and developing specific response options.
But
despite acknowledging that the relationship "poses a significant threat
to US interests," National Security
Council officials ultimately recommended in late March that the
administration should not take specific steps toward addressing the
underlying Iran-Haqqani Network nexus as officials concluded that any
response would likely have a negative impact on the peace
efforts, according to an internal memo obtained by CNN.
NSC officials also determined that the Afghan government's ability to focus on any issue other than the coronavirus
outbreak would likely deteriorate, therefore limiting potential diplomatic options that typically would be available.
While
the Trump administration did not take any specific action after
concluding its internal review of the link
between Iran and the Haqqani Network earlier this year, multiple
officials argued that the President has taken a strong stance toward
Tehran for its dealings with the Taliban.
A
current administration official and former senior official with
knowledge of the situation told CNN that Iran's
link to the Taliban was cited by US officials as part of the argument
for conducting the strike that killed top Iranian General Qasem
Soleimani in January.
Still,
the issue of foreign governments encouraging the Taliban to resume
attacking US and coalition forces in
Afghanistan remains a topic of concern for national security officials,
according to a joint intelligence assessment produced by the CIA, NSA
and NCTC just last month. The assessment notes that Iran reimbursed the
Haqqani Network after it conducted at least
six attacks against US and Coalition interests in 2019.
Pentagon
spokesman Army Maj. Rob Lodewick told CNN that "the Department of
Defense does not disclose timelines
or discussions surrounding internal deliberations and intelligence
briefings," when asked whether top defense officials were briefed on
intelligence related to Iran's involvement in specific Taliban attacks
but did acknowledge Tehran's efforts to undermine
the peace process.
"The
administration has repeatedly demanded, both publicly and privately,
that Iran cease its scourge of malign
and destabilizing behavior throughout the Middle East and the world.
While the United States, its NATO allies and coalition partners are
working to facilitate an end to 19 years of bloodshed, Iran's inimical
influence seeks to undermine the Afghan peace process
and foster a continuation of violence and instability," he said.
The Iranian government, the NCTC and the NSC did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
Discussions about a response continued for roughly three months
While
working group discussions focused on addressing Iran's payments to the
Haqqani Network continued on for roughly
three months after the Soleimani strike, some officials involved in the
process believed efforts to develop options aimed at countering the
relationship were hamstrung by the ongoing peace talks between the US
and Taliban, two sources familiar with the process
told CNN.
"The
object of concern was the relationship because it seemed like one that
in any other year would have merited
pretty concerted action," a source familiar with the decision-making
process told CNN, noting that options like targeted sanctions or even a
military response against the militant group in Afghanistan would have
otherwise been on the table.
"The
overarching element to all of this has been the prioritization of the
peace deal with the Taliban and that,
even going back to December 2019, was a well-known priority in terms of
what the US response would be to a potential incentivized attack backed
by a foreign government," the same source said. "On the peace
agreement, prior to its publication and even following
its publication, it was astonishing the degree to which the Department
of State and special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation were
in the lead as opposed to the national security council staff."
While
top administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
were quick to condemn the December
attack at Bagram, there was no mention of any US injuries in the days
and weeks that followed despite knowing shortly after the incident that
four Americans had been wounded, according to the Pentagon briefing
document.
The administration has also never mentioned Iran's connection to the bombing, an omission current and former officials
said was connected to the broader prioritization of the peace agreement and withdrawal from Afghanistan.
At the time of the December attack on Bagram, peace negotiations between the US and the Taliban were in a fragile
state. Less than two weeks prior, Trump had announced
during a surprise trip to Bagram that talks were going to resume after a months-long pause.
A
State Department spokesperson declined to answer questions about Iran's
purported role in the December 11 attack
on Bagram but told CNN that Tehran's "support to some elements of the
Taliban has threatened to undermine the peace process in Afghanistan."
"Iran
has tried to use proxy groups to carry out the Iranian regime's own
nefarious agenda, and it would be a mistake
for any faction of the Taliban to get entangled in Iran's dirty work,"
they added, noting that the Trump administration "remains committed to
addressing the full range of threats Iran poses to the US and regional
stability. "
[Editor’s Note: Somewhat interestingly, Bravo Company 3/116 was the unit I served as a squad leader in Afghanistan with.]
17 Aug 2020
Stars and Stripes | By Steve Beynon
WASHINGTON -- The Army has
been slowly integrating women into ground combat
units since the Defense Department opened all military jobs to all
troops in 2015. The initiative garnered a good deal of media attention
for female "firsts" throughout the force. Now, five years later, women
have expanded their footprint in combat arms and
are taking command of units that have been exclusively male for
centuries.
Capt. Candice
Bowen took command of Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry
Regiment, 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, last month. She is one of
the first black
women to take command of a rifle company in the National Guard and the
first female infantry commander in Virginia. The company's history
traces back to Confederate general Stonewall Jackson's brigade.
"I think in
general people have their own perceptions of what a female officer is
going to be. It's 'Maybe women shouldn't be in combat arms,' but at the
end of the day,
a capable soldier is a capable soldier," Bowen said. "The Army is
changing, it's evolving, it's growing, we're making sure we have the
best people for the job. That's it. As long as the standards don't
change, let the best person compete."
Gender
integration into combat arms kicked off in August 2015 when captains
Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver became the first women to graduate Ranger
School, one of the most
grueling military courses in the world. A year later, Griest became the
Army's first female infantry officer. Haver took command of a rifle
company in the 82nd Airborne Division in 2018, and she has since been
promoted to major.
"Possibly
going into combat arms is a daunting thing to look at; it's a dirty,
thankless job and you're required to do bad things to bad people and
that is not for everyone.
But sometimes you're too hard on yourself thinking you cannot do those
things," Haver said in a panel discussion at West Point in 2018. "When I
have conversations with other females about going into combat arms and
if I hear anything other than they want to
get after it, it's disappointing. If you're not going into the infantry
because you truly want to lead men and women to close with and destroy
the enemy, which is our job, then you don't need to do that."
Leaders First
Bowen, 31,
commissioned as a military police officer in 2012. She deployed to Qatar
with 3rd Battalion in 2016 and after her return, immediately went to
Afghanistan with
the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, where she earned her combat action badge. She
made the switch to infantry in 2019 after Virginia scaled-down military
police forces.
Her move to
infantry was amid the Army's "Leaders First" effort , which started in
2016. The goal was to place female leaders in combat units ahead of
junior enlisted women
joining the ranks. Critics of the policy and even the Army have said
the measure slowed down gender integration. All leaders start as newly
recruited privates, but privates couldn't necessarily be assigned to a
combat unit without a woman in a leadership role,
meaning the military had to entice female officers and NCOs to switch
jobs. Gender integration has been slowed by not having enough female
infantry and armor leaders available, according to a statement from the
Army in June. Promising female officers have
been encouraged to switch from support to infantry, armor or cavalry.
But the Army found that only a tiny fraction of female officers and NCOs
were interested into joining the infantry or armor fields. The policy
shifted to companies only being required to
have female E5 of any military job to be in a unit before junior
enlisted women can join the ranks.
"I understand
there are very few women in combat arms, but we need more people in
combat arms period. [Women enlisting] is as big of an issue as people
decide it is. We
want the best soldiers for the job," Bowen said.
Women are
still a minority in the Army, and especially in combat arms. Women make
up just 14% of the Army's enlisted and 19% of its officer corps,
according to 2018 data
from the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. foreign policy think
tank. The Marine Corps has the fewest number of women, with 8% enlisted and 9% officers.
"The Army as a
whole is predominantly male; it's not new to be one of the only females
in a group," said Capt. Amie Kemppainen, an Iraq War veteran.
Kemppainen,
46, took command of B Company, 3rd Battalion, 126th Infantry Regiment,
in March. She is the first woman in the Michigan National
Guard to command an infantry company. She joined the infantry after 25 years of service in support units.
"I probably
wasn't what people thought would be the ideal candidate. Physically,
you've got to hold your own, male or female, and lead from the front,"
she said.
Thrust into combat
The decision
to open combat arms came after nearly two decades of post-9/11 wars,
where women were thrust into combat for the first time on a large scale
due to the nature
of the conflicts. The lines blurred between combat and support units,
and the traditional front line was erased by an insurgency that could
take the fight to American troops anywhere. In previous wars, men in
combat arms units usually held the front.
The breaking
point for the Defense Department came in 2012 when a lawsuit was filed
by Army Reservists, Command Sgt. Maj. Jane Baldwin and Col. Ellen
Haring, accusing the
government of violating the constitutional rights of women by excluding
them from ground combat units solely due to gender, and arguing that
the ban hinders careers.
"This
limitation on plaintiffs' careers restricts their current and future
earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their
future retirement benefits,"
the women said in the suit filed in U.S. District Court.
Women have
been playing a major role in ground combat for years leading up with the
lawsuit. However, until recently, women have had to stick to support
roles. When the
ban was lifted, women could enlist and commission into roles that are
exclusively combat-focused, such as special forces, infantry and cavalry
scouts.
"To me it
wasn't so much a real change, it was the policy catching up with
reality. Women becoming actual infantrymen is a change," said Kayla
Williams, an Iraq War veteran
and senior fellow and director of the Military, Veterans and Society
Program at the Center for a New American Security, a national security
think tank. "It was driven by what has been happening already."
Williams
served as a linguist in the 101st Airborne during the invasion of Iraq.
She said it is critical to have women to talk to and search female
civilians on Middle East
battlefields.
"It was a
combination that women were needed in these positions, women were
excelling in combat, and there was recognition from the public that no
one freaked out that women
were dying in combat. ... We've had women killed in World War II, but
the type of jobs they were doing were generally not happening on the
scale they are now. ... In Vietnam there was a relatively small number
of women as a percent, the majority of them were
nurses. It was traumatic, some of them were killed."
Now, there are
680 enlisted women in the active Army serving as infantry, tankers or
cavalry scouts, and 260 officers. There are 55,000 enlisted men in the
infantry and
7,000 officers. On the armor and cavalry side, there are 18,000 male
enlisted and 3,000 officers, according to the most recent data from the
Defense Department.
The numbers
are much smaller in the National Guard: There are 37 enlisted infantry
women (28,524 men), 11 cavalry scouts (4,842 men), eight tankers (1,619
men), and none
serving in mortars, where there are 2,950 men. The Guard has 26 female
infantry officers (3,560 men) and 22 armor/cavalry officers (1,124 men),
according to the National Guard Bureau.
However, 2020
is the first year the National Guard saw female officers leave combat
arms. Last year there were 33 female infantry officers and 27 in armor.
But this year
could be an outlier since the Guard saw its first wave of women
commission into armor and infantry in late 2016, seven in each branch,
the number roughly doubled.
The Marine
Corps is an entirely different story. There are no female infantry
officers across the entire branch, but two have graduated from the
Corps' infantry officer
course. The Marine Corps has the smallest number of personnel in the
military and the smallest number of female officers. Of the nearly
22,000 officers in the Marine Corps, as of May, only 1,877 are women,
according to the Defense Department.
Initial concerns
Kemppainen
said there was skepticism when she showed up to her infantry company as a
platoon leader, restarting her career after initially enlisting in
1994.
"The real goal was that the only real way to earn command was to start from the beginning," she said.
Part of
integrating is making it clear things in an infantry unit will operate
as they always have, Kemppainen said. But the initial concerns on her
arrival to what had
been a male-only regiment for nearly 200 years were mostly skepticism
that any new lieutenant would face.
"The biggest
reward for me was guys who were skeptical became my biggest allies and
supporters," she said. "It was necessary to prove I can hack it
physically. But that
is also the same with men."
There were a few logistical and cultural speedbumps, but Kemppainen said they were mostly a nonissue.
"There were
conversations of where a female sleeps, whether in the barracks or
field. Those were some new conversations we had to have. What we did was
try to approach it
as business as usual and not make it a big deal," she said. "There was
one time we were in the barracks, I was reading the Ranger Handbook and
some of the guys were playing cards, cutting jokes, messing with each
other. One of them said something, there was
a pregnant pause and they waited for my reaction. I fired something
back and it was then clear it was business as usual. ... as soon as they
realized that was true and not lip service, we never had a problem."
Capt. Emily
Lilly also made the jump to combat arms from her original support role.
Lilly is a North Carolina Guard armor officer with the 30th Armored
Brigade Combat Team,
which is deployed to the Middle East. She originally branched as an
ordnance officer in 2013, but quickly switched to combat arms and was in
the first group of women to graduate armor officer school in December
2016. She graduated Ranger School in 2018.
"I wanted to
do cool stuff. My grandfather was a cavalry officer," she said. "He
commissioned in 1936. ... When WWII broke out, he trained as a tanker at
Fort Knox and headed
to North Africa and then Sicily as an armor company commander."
Lilly, 41,
said being in the first group of female officers to join armor and
cavalry units led to a lot of media attention. She said there are
"definitely some guys behind
the times," but she was fortunate to have great leaders through her
career who supported her. However, her trailblazing sparked a series of
crude remarks online.
"We definitely
got our share of negative attention on social media," Lilly said. "I
remember one comment on an article on 'the first 13 women armor
officers' in which someone
commented, 'more like the next 13 women in the Army to get pregnant.'
"Four years
later, many of us have been made captain, we've done combat deployments
and completed tough schools, but none of us got pregnant."
No segregation
Second Lt.
Colleen O'Callaghan serves in 1st Battalion, 148th Infantry Regiment of
the 37th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. She recently returned from a
civil disturbance
mission in the White House area.
She is the
Ohio National Guard's first female infantry platoon leader, but she said
all her issues were related to men being almost uncomfortably
respectful.
"I think the
biggest thing women run into is people trying to do the right thing, but
they do the wrong thing," O'Callaghan said. "It's more of the [junior
soldiers] being
afraid of doing something that'll make me uncomfortable, I think
they're afraid of bringing down a ... complaint."
O'Callaghan,
27, said a routine occurrence is when someone is talking to a group of
officers, giving the regular courtesy of addressing the group as
"gentlemen," then quickly
correcting themselves by adding "and ma'am."
"I don't care if people call me a gentleman, or sir," she said. "It's not necessary to call out the one woman."
O'Callaghan
expressed some frustration of early efforts to segregate her from her
troops in barracks, saying getting her own space during training was
detrimental to her
ability to lead. Where the Ohio Guard often trains, at Camp Atterbury,
Ind., the barracks for soldiers offer no privacy, and gender-specific
bathrooms and showers are virtually nonexistent.
"I don't think
there should be any segregations, if you're in a platoon you're in a
platoon and should not be apart," she said. "I usually say I want to use
the shower at
a certain time and just make sure that's cleared. It isn't much of an
issue."
But some women
are concerned that a sizable chunk of men are not ready for female
leadership in combat, saying the masculine culture prevalent in the Army
has vastly outdated
views on women.
"The biggest
issue that I don't think I would have faced as a man is the negative
reactions to decisiveness," said a junior Army support officer who spoke
on the condition
of anonymity. "As a female in the military, you're either a pushover or
a bitch, there's no in-between. If I were a man, I'd be the fearless
leader -- the alpha. As a woman, I'm cocky, I'm the bitch. I'm the one
who is a stickler. Having a voice as a female
in a male-dominated field is difficult enough, but once you find your
voice, you still can't win."
The junior
Army officer recently saw another woman take command of an infantry
company, and she said most of the male feedback was "pretty standard,"
saying some of the
soldiers are "sexist for the sake of power dynamics ... needing the
boys club to remain."
"Most men are
like 'as long as she met the same standards' but they fail to realize
that comment in and of itself is dripping in sexism," she said. "They
wouldn't ask that
of an incoming male commander, they just assume he has."
23 hours ago
1.6K
U.S. troops and Syrian
Democratic Forces exchanged fire with pro-Syrian regime troops Monday, but there were no U.S. casualties.
At about 9:20
a.m. Syrian time, U.S. and SDF forces, conducting a routine anti ISIS
security patrol near Tal Al-Zahab, Syria, encountered a checkpoint
occupied by pro-Syrian
regime forces, U.S. defense officials tell Military Times.
“After
receiving safe passage from pro-regime forces, the patrol came under
small arms fire from individuals in the vicinity of the checkpoint,
according to a media release
from the Combined Joint Task Force- Operation Inherent Resolve, the
headquarters overseeing anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria.
“Coalition forces returned fire in self-defense. The Coalition did not
conduct an airstrike. No Coalition casualties occurred.
The Coalition patrol returned to base. The incident is under
investigation.”
Army Col.
Myles Caggins III, a coalition spokesman, and Army Maj. John Rigsbee, a
spokesman for U.S. Central Command, confirmed to Military Times that
U.S. troops were involved
in the incident. Caggins told Military Times that there were U.S.
helicopters in the area, but “did not shoot at the checkpoint or
anywhere else.”
The coalition
announcement contradicts earlier reports by Syrian state media and an
opposition war monitoring group, who reported that a U.S. helicopter
gunship on Monday
attacked a Syrian army checkpoint in the country’s northeast, killing
one soldier and wounding two others.
According to the reports, the attack came after the Syrian army prevented an American convoy from passing through.
Tensions have
been rising in northeast Syria between government forces and U.S. troops
in recent months. In several instances, Syrian troops prevented U.S.
forces from entering
several areas in the region.
Syrian state TV said the helicopter attack took place near the town of Qamishli.
The
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights gave no breakdown of
the casualties but said that before the strike, an argument broke out
between the Syrian and U.S.
troops.
Hundreds of
U.S. troops are stationed in northeastern Syria, working with their
local partners from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to fight
against the Islamic
State group.
17 hours ago
3.5K
The U.S.
Postal Service announced it will halt planned service reductions and
other cost-cutting initiatives in response to public outcry — including
strong opposition from veterans advocates — over the timing and impact of the moves.
“There are
some long-standing operational initiatives … that have been raised as
areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst
of a devastating
pandemic,” Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in a statement released Tuesday.
“To avoid even
the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these
initiatives until after the election is concluded. Retail hours at Post
Offices will
not change. Mail processing equipment and blue collection boxes will
remain where they are. No mail processing facilities will be closed. And
we reassert that overtime has, and will continue to be, approved as
needed.”
The reversal
comes just a few days before DeJoy is scheduled to testify before
Congress on the operational changes, some of which drew concerns about
election tampering
from Democratic leaders.
Much of the country is expected to use mail-in
voting in this fall’s presidential election because of the
ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and recent service disruptions and
operational cutbacks have drawn accusations that administration
officials were hurting the system to gain electoral advantages.
But in recent
days, the change has also drawn strong criticism from veterans advocates
who reported widespread problems with veterans receiving needed
medications through
the mail.
Mail-order
prescriptions have become the only option for large groups of veterans
around the country since the start of the pandemic because VA medical
centers have limited
visitors in an effort to slow the spread of the illness.
Bottom of Form
On Monday,
officials from Disabled American Veterans said that Veterans Affairs
leaders had informed advocates that postal service changes had delayed
mail medication deliveries
by almost 25 percent in the last year, with even worse delays in some
rural and remote areas.
“It is simply
unacceptable that America’s veterans, particularly those who were
injured or made ill in defense of this country, should face the prospect
of not receiving
necessary medications in a timely manner considering such delays can be
the difference between health and sickness, or even worse,” DAV
National Commander Stephen Whitehead said in a statement.
“Our nation’s
veterans, particularly those disabled by their service, deserve nothing
less than high-quality and timely health care and benefits no matter
their geographic
location, and for the foreseeable future that requires a fully
functioning United States Postal Service.”
President
Donald Trump and congressional Democrats have sparred over funding for
postal operations in recent months. On Tuesday, during an appearance on
CNN, Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said if election concerns weren’t dire
enough to force the president to act, the veterans complaints should be.
“Our veterans
get 80, 90 percent of their (medications) through the mail,” he said.
“And to have these things delayed, all these special things delayed, and
at the same
time to sort of try to make the Post Office dysfunction so the
elections will be dysfunctional, that’s despicable.”
Trump has denied any political motivations in the mail service controversy.
DeJoy is
scheduled to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee on Friday and before the House Oversight
Committee on Aug. 24.
Meanwhile,
officials from both the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees
have called for the postal service officials to provide answers to
veterans concerns.
“We are
concerned by reports from veterans and VA staff indicating that wait
times have doubled or even tripled in some cases, without explanation,”
House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee Chairman Mark Takano wrote in a letter to DeJoy and VA
Secretary Robert Wilkie last week. “Reports indicate that medications
have been allegedly sitting at post office locations for nearly two
weeks without movement.
“These delays are a real threat to our veterans, and your agencies must do everything possible to rectify the situation.”
In his
statement Tuesday, DeJoy did not mention the veteran prescription
problems, but pledged to deliver the nation’s mail “on time and within
our well-established service
standards” in coming months.
“ Pro Deo et Patria “
James W. Casey
Adjutant
American Legion
Department of New York
0 comments:
Post a Comment