Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Home » » American Legion - A message from the Department Adjutant

American Legion - A message from the Department Adjutant

Marine Corps League Yankee Detachment #255  September 15, 2020    No comments

A MESSAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT ADJUTANT
 
    “ Pro Deo et Patria “
        James W. Casey
              Adjutant
      American Legion
Department of New York
 
 
Good morning, Legionnaires and veterans' advocates, it’s Tuesday, September 15, 2020, which is International Democracy Day, National Caregivers Day, National Tackle Kids Cancer Day, and National Thank You Day. 
Tomorrow in American Legion history: 
  • Sept. 16, 1919: The American Legion is federally chartered, which authorizes the as-yet unincorporated organization to proceed to the adoption of a constitution and bylaws, elect officers “and do all other things necessary” as outlined in U.S. Code, Title 36, Chapters 41-50. Under Chapter 43, “Purposes of corporation,” much of the language is borrowed from the original draft Preamble to The American Legion Constitution with some notable deviations, such as “to promote peace and good will among the peoples of the United States and all the nations of the earth” and “to cement the ties and comradeship born of service.” The original charter outlines the powers and authority of the organization, membership criteria, naming rights, exclusivity to manufacture and use The American Legion emblem, and a requirement that “the organization shall be nonpolitical and, as an organization, shall not promote the candidacy of any person seeking public office.” 
 
Today in history: 
  • 1940: The Battle of Britain reaches its climax when the Royal Air Force (RAF) downs 56 invading German aircraft in two dogfights lasting less than an hour. The costly raid convinced the German high command that the Luftwaffe could not achieve air supremacy over Britain, and the next day daylight attacks were replaced with nighttime sorties as a concession of defeat. 
 
  • 1950: During the Korean War, U.S. Marines land at Inchon on the west coast of Korea, 100 miles south of the 38th parallel and just 25 miles from Seoul. The location had been criticized as too risky, but U.N. Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur insisted on carrying out the landing. By the early evening, the Marines had overcome moderate resistance and secured Inchon. The brilliant landing cut the North Korean forces in two, and the U.S.-led U.N. force pushed inland to recapture Seoul, the South Korean capital that had fallen to the communists in June. Allied forces then converged from the north and the south, devastating the North Korean army and taking 125,000 enemy troops prisoner. 

     
  • On September 15, 1963, a bomb explodes during Sunday morning services in the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing four young girls: Addie Mae Collins (14), Cynthia Wesley (14), Carole Robertson (14) and Carol Denise McNair (11). 

     
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS: 
If you wish to be removed from this email list, kindly email mseavey@legion.org with “Remove” in the subject line.  If you have received this from someone who forwarded it and would like to be added, email mseavey@legion.org.  
 
By STEVE BEYNON | STARS AND STRIPES | Published: September 14, 2020 
WASHINGTON — A data breach at the Department of Veterans Affairs has potentially compromised the personal information of roughly 46,000 veterans, the agency announced Monday. 
VA officials said the agency is already reaching out to the veterans impacted including the next-of-kin of those who are deceased. The department is offering free credit monitoring to anyone whose Social Security numbers were accessible. 
The Federal Services Center, the finance department for the VA, discovered one of its online applications was “accessed by unauthorized users” who gained access to financial information, according to a VA statement. It was unclear Monday when the breach was discovered or which specific application was compromised. However, the compromised application was taken offline, according to the VA. 
Veterans and beneficiaries who have not been contacted by VA officials are not at risk of having their information stolen, according to the department’s statement on the breach. 
"Veterans whose information was involved are advised to follow the instructions in the letter to protect their data," the statement said. "There is no action needed from veterans if they did not receive an alert by mail, as their personal information was not involved in the incident." 
Veterans or next-of-kin who receive notification their information is potentially at risk from this incident can send questions to VAFSCVeteransSupport@va.gov or write to VA FSC Help Desk, Attn: Customer Engagement Center, P.O. Box 149971, Austin, TX 78714-9971. 
 
ABBIE BENNETT | SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 - 2:35 PM 
Under a bill expected to be introduced Tuesday, veterans ill from toxic exposures could have a new avenue for benefits.  
Comedian and activist Jon Stewart, Capitol Hill lawmakers Rep. Raul Ruiz and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin and other advocates including Burn Pits 360, plan to announce the legislation on Tuesday.  
Veterans who sicken after being exposed to toxic hazards during their service must prove that their illnesses were caused by those exposures unless the Department of Veterans Affairs considers the illness a "presumptive." 
But adding illnesses to VA's list of presumptive conditions -- those health concerns VA or lawmakers have decided are "presumed" to be caused by military service -- is difficult, at times complex and often costly, making progress to expand the list arduous.  
So far, VA only recognizes temporary health effects related to burn pits, including respiratory, skin, eye and gastrointestinal tract irritation, though it estimates as many as 3.5 million American troops may have been exposed to airborne hazards such as burn pit emissions since 9/11.  
The Presumptive Benefits for War Fighters Exposed to Burn Pits and Other Toxins Act has an ambitious aim -- cutting through the red tape to switch the burden of proof from the veteran to VA. The legislation would require VA to provide benefits to veterans exposed to hazards during service who have one or more of the dozens of diseases included in the scope of the bill, such as "cancer of any type, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, lymphoma, Granulomatous disease, pulmonary fibrosis, sarcoidosis, asthma diagnosed after service" in the areas covered by the bill and more. 
The bill includes coverage for veterans ill after exposures in at least one of 33 countries. 
The Department of Defense estimates that at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans were responsible for more than 200 burn pits smoldering across both countries. The largest of those was at Balad Air Base in Iraq -- a 10-acre pit of burning trash that continued to spew toxic smoke from at least 2003 to 2009.  
But though the Pentagon and VA acknowledge that such exposures can be harmful, there are no presumptive conditions so far to provide benefits for illnesses caused by airborne hazards such as burn pit exposure. So far more than 212,000 veterans and troops have added themselves to VA's Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry, but participation is voluntary and advocates say that number far undercounts the number affected.  
Most of the veterans who have filed a VA claim for burn pit exposure have so far been denied.  
From 2007 to 2018, VA received more than 11,000 claims of illnesses veterans believed were caused by burn pit exposure, and VA denied about 80% of those claims.  
The burden of establishing a firm link between toxic exposures and the illnesses they cause has proved heavy over the years, as Pentagon records of exposures are notoriously incomplete or nonexistent -- including the locations of burn pits and other hazards -- leaving veterans waiting as they grow more ill or die. 
To be covered by the new bill, veterans must have a campaign medal for a deployment connected to the Global War on Terror, the Gulf War, or have served on active duty on or after Aug. 2, 1990 and "spent a minimum of 15 or more cumulative days" in a long list of countries, most of which are in the Middle East, Southwest Asia or North Africa.  
The bill did not include an anticipated cost for covering the list of illnesses and thousands of veterans it would likely extend benefits for, and lawmakers did not include a price tag in their news release about the bill. But based on the number of conditions that could be covered and the number of countries included in the bill, the cost will undoubtedly be high. Cost has been a sticking point in the past for legislation aiming to expand benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. 
Previously, Stewart argued that war profiteers should share the cost of veterans' care, including those exposed to hazards while deployed.  
"If we've got the money to go to war, we have to make sure we have the money to take care of people when they come home from war," Stewart said during a June interview. "I would like to see the people who profit off of war have to kick in for the people who suffer from the effects of war. I believe that in the way that oil and gas companies have to kick a 10 percent contingency on spills, I think war profiteers should kick in a 10 percent contingency plan, so that (veterans) don't have to always come, hat in hand, begging for money because their brothers and sisters are still dying from the things that they saw and faced in downrange war zones."  
This will be the latest in a series of toxic exposure legislation introduced in Congress over the past two years, including a landmark bill introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. The Toxic Exposure in the American Military (TEAM) Act aims to allow VA to potentially expand benefits and health care to thousands of veterans by allowing VA to add more presumptive conditions for troops exposed to toxic substances, such as herbicides and burn pits, and provide consultations, testing and treatment, among other major mandates. Toxic exposures have increasingly gained attention as veterans and troops sicken with rare cancers, respiratory and fertility issues, especially those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
One of the major hurdles VA leaders cite for covering illnesses veterans insist were caused by their exposures is a lack of concrete scientific evidence. While some data exists linking illnesses to exposures, so far it hasn't been enough to satisfy VA, or key lawmakers who would have the power to establish presumptive conditions.  
Just last week, a committee of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine researchers released a report reviewing currently available studies and data, coming to the conclusion that while there is "limited or suggestive evidence" to link post-9/11 or Gulf War service to "chronic cough, shortness of breath and wheezing," a new approach is needed to prove other illnesses are caused by airborne hazards experienced during service. 
While Gillibrand and Ruiz plan to introduce the new bill soon, there's limited time to see it passed this Congress as the session runs out, an election looms and major legislation is still left unfinished, including finalizing the National Defense Authorization Act and any additional COVID-19 relief efforts. If this or any other bill don't pass by the end of 2020, lawmakers will have to reintroduce them in the next session of Congress and begin the process again.  
 
14 Sep 2020 | Military.com | By Patricia Kime 
A new report from a scientific advisory panel finds some evidence that chronic respiratory symptoms, such as coughing and wheezing, are linked to service in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War and post-9/11 combat environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 
But the research, published Friday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, found there was not enough evidence or data to conclude a link between combat deployments to the Middle East and Afghanistan and many serious pulmonary diseases -- a finding likely to disappoint thousands of service members who believe their poor health was caused by open-air burn pits used by the U.S. military for waste disposal or by the dust or emissions inhaled while they served overseas. 
The Department of Veterans Affairs asked the National Academies in 2018 to review existing scientific and medical research to determine whether such deployments contributed to the development of respiratory illnesses in U.S. service members. 
An 11-member panel led by Dr. Mark Utell, professor of medicine and environmental medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center, could not definitively prove any association between deployment and more than 20 health conditions, including non-cancerous respiratory disorders such as sinusitis, sleep apnea, constrictive bronchiolitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as cancers of the lungs, esophagus, mouth and nasal passages. 
Panel members said their conclusions did not mean there was no link, but simply that research or data does not exist to draw a connection. 
"The committee experienced a general sense of frustration, given the testimonials that we heard and obvious interest in outcomes. For example, asthma in theater -- the data did not support it, and it was a frustrating aspect of our work on the committee," said panel member Dr. Svere Vedal, professor emeritus in the department of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington School of Public Health. 
The panel was able to determine that "limited or suggestive evidence" existed of an association between deployment for veterans who served in the first Gulf War and those who served in military operations after Sept. 11, 2001, and chronic cough, shortness of breath and wheezing. 
The "limited or suggested evidence" characterization might make it easier for thousands of Gulf veterans with such symptoms to receive VA disability compensation, but the VA would have to accept the ruling and add the symptoms to a list of illnesses presumed to be connected to overseas service in the Persian Gulf and post-9/11. 
The VA historically has listed conditions with the same designation for exposures such as Agent Orange but, since 2016, has not listed any new conditions recommended by the National Academies as having "limited or suggested evidence" as service-related. 
More than 3.7 million service members have deployed to the areas studied since 1990, beginning with the Persian Gulf War. During these operations, troops were exposed to smoke from oil well fires; burn pits; operational airborne hazards such as exhaust and industrial emissions; and airborne dust stirred up during combat and storms. 
Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan reported that they were exposed to various hazardous materials as a result of what was burned in the pits, including garbage, plastics, batteries and other waste, and some have respiratory diseases, rare cancers and neurological disorders their doctors attribute to environmental exposures. 
According to the report, the panelists found that the research done to date on airborne exposures in the region since 1990 has not been adequate or the studies lacked the scientific rigor required to confirm association. 
For example, they noted, many of the studies they reviewed assumed that deployed veterans all had the same exposure, which ignores the fact that service members were assigned across locations and time and did not have the same exposure. 
They also found that studies failed to account for cigarette smoking, and the mortality research they examined often did not specify the cause of death, making it impossible to determine how many veterans have died from respiratory diseases. 
"We know that there were hazardous exposures, but we have limited information on who was actually exposed, what they were exposed to where, and what concentration they were exposed to over what time and how frequently exposure occurred," Utell said. "In light of that, the committee recommended some things need to be done, and rather than just throwing up our hands and saying 'more needs to be done,' we made constructive recommendations." 
The committee recommended specific studies be done on veterans who may have been exposed, using biomarkers to provide more information on exposure effects and susceptibility. 
Advanced technology could be used to analyze satellite data taken during operations in the past 30 years, and the Defense Department could improve its understanding of battlefield pollutants by equipping service members with wearable devices to monitor exposures and health conditions, panel members noted. 
And they also recommended that the VA conduct an analysis of mortality among this cohort of veterans -- something it hasn't done since 2011. The VA should continue identifying subpopulations to study and follow across time to fully understand the effects of exposures, the panel suggested. 
A number of bills have been introduced in Congress this year to improve the lives of veterans whose health has been affected by exposure to airborne pollutants. On Tuesday, comedian Jon Stewart and activist John Feal will join Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif.; and veterans to call attention to the issue and introduce new legislation. 
Stewart, who pressed Congress to continue funding a compensation fund for the families of 9/11 victims, has said that the issue is "about the way we go to war as a country." 
"We always have money to make war. We need to always have money to take care of what happens to people who are selfless enough, patriotic enough, to wage those wars on our behalf," Stewart said earlier this year. 
 
Sept. 14, 2020, 10:52 AM EDT | By Courtney Kube and Ken Dilanian 
WASHINGTON — Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian government bribed the Taliban to kill American service members, the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program. 
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to hunt for new information on the matter, he said. 
"We continue to look for that evidence," the general said. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue." 
McKenzie's comments, reflecting a consensus view among military leaders, underscores the lack of certainty around a narrative that has been accepted as fact by Democrats and other Trump critics, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has cited Russian bounties in attacks on President Donald Trump. 
U.S. intelligence agencies have for years documented Russian financial and military support to the Taliban, but a Russian program to incentivize the killing of American service members would represent a significant escalation. 
Trump said he did not raise the issue of Russian payments to the Taliban in his most recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Critics have said he should have. Senior military officials say they don't believe the intelligence is strong enough to act on. 
Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said. 
"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet." 
A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none have been tied to any Russian incentive payments. 
The suggestion of a Russian bounty program began, another source directly familiar with the matter said, with a raid by CIA paramilitary officers that captured Taliban documents describing Russian payments. 
A Taliban detainee told the CIA such a program existed, the source said, although the term "bounty" was never used. Later, the CIA was able to document financial transfers between Russian military intelligence and the Taliban, and establish there had been travel by key Russian officers to Afghanistan and by relevant Taliban figures to Russia. 
That intelligence was reviewed by CIA Director Gina Haspel and placed in Trump's daily intelligence briefing book earlier this year, officials have said. The source described the intelligence as compelling, but meriting further investigation. Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said. 
Many military officials have always been more skeptical, several senior officials said, in part because they had not seen all the intelligence the CIA had gathered. Unlike counterterrorism information, intelligence gathered about sensitive Russian government activities is often closely held, sometimes distributed only in paper form to a small number of senior officials in Washington. 
But after The New York Times reported on intelligence about an alleged bounty program, senior military officials have had a chance to examine all the intelligence, officials say. 
Defense Secretary Mark Esper told the House Armed Services Committee in July that "All the defense intelligence agencies have been unable to corroborate that report. " But at the same hearing, Milley promised a deeper investigation. 
"As of today, right now, we don't have cause and effect linkages to a Russian bounty program causing U.S. military casualties," Milley said. "However, we are still looking. We're not done. We're going to run this thing to ground." 
Eight weeks later, McKenzie said, differing opinions persist about what conclusions the U.S. can draw from the information. 
"People that are involved in it get very emotional about it," he said. "I can't afford to be emotional about it. I've got to step back and look at the totality of the picture." 
If the Russians are trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, he said, "I want to know, because I won't hesitate to take action if that's the case. I just haven't seen it. I just haven't seen it. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but nothing was out there that I could grasp that connect together in a pattern that I would consider actionable." 
The bounty story has played out against a backdrop of a U.S. withdrawal of forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. is in the midst of cutting the number of troops in Afghanistan roughly in half, from 8,600 to about 4,500, by election day. 
McKenzie said with 4,500 troops, the U.S. will still maintain a counterterrorism capability and will continue to advise the Afghan Security Forces at a higher level. "I think Gen. [Scott] Miller has a very good plan to do that at a level of 4,500." 
But asked whether he assesses the Taliban are not upholding their end of the peace agreement, McKenzie said, "Absolutely." 
"The Taliban has been scrupulous about not attacking U.S. or coalition forces in Afghanistan. They have, however, continued to attack government security forces at a fairly high rate. And that's very concerning," he said. 
McKenzie said he also worries that the Taliban may not take concrete steps to show that Afghanistan cannot be used as a base for al Qaeda or the Islamic State militant group in the future. "We have ample evidence that the Taliban is no friend of ISIS. I understand that. But what we need to see is that they're not going to allow al Qaeda to base there. And that is just not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Perhaps it will be brought out in the days ahead. But it's going to need to be brought out demonstrated." 
The Taliban have shown the ability to take on ISIS, he said, but al Qaeda is different. "I think emotionally, culturally and for a variety of reasons, it's much harder for them to do that with al Qaeda." 
 
By CAITLIN M. KENNEY | STARS AND STRIPES | Published: September 14, 2020 
WASHINGTON — Americans do not understand the severity of the military threats posed by China, particularly its ability to strike the U.S. mainland with a nuclear weapon, a top U.S. commander said Monday. 
“I get apprehensive that we are not fully conscious as a nation of the threats that we face. China now has the capability … to directly threaten our homeland from a ballistic missile submarine. That’s a pretty watershed moment,” said Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, which has a mission to protect the country by deterring such attacks and, if that fails, prepare to respond. 
Richard’s comments follow the release earlier this month of the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on China’s military power, which states the country now has the largest navy in the world and is planning to grow its nuclear weapons arsenal. The estimated number of nuclear warheads that China has is “in the low 200s,” according to the report. 
“Over the next decade, China will expand and diversify its nuclear forces, likely at least doubling its nuclear warhead stockpile,” according to the 200-page report. 
Despite China’s increased military ability to strike the U.S., Richard said the American people do not grasp the threat against them like they did during the Cold War. 
“So we knew there was a threat to us that might require us to respond strategically. We don’t even think about that anymore. We take strategic deterrence for granted in a lot of cases,” he told reporters at the Pentagon. “Not acknowledging the fact that we have never had a nuclear attack on the nation and haven’t had a great-power war in 70 years was not just some accidental fate in history … It was a lot of hard work by a lot of people to maintain systems ready to go, so that we deterred that from happening.” 
The Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy also shifted the U.S. military’s focus from counterterrorism operations to “great-power competition” with China as well as Russia. The economic policies of China and its militarization of the South China Sea and Russia’s efforts to undermine NATO and its nuclear arsenal are major concerns for the U.S. military, according to the National Defense Strategy. 
The Pentagon report also states that China’s leaders want to develop their military to be “world-class” by 2049, which the Pentagon interprets to mean to be on par or better than other world powers such as the U.S. 
Richard added Monday that China’s plan to increase its nuclear capabilities “is increasingly inconsistent with a stated No First Use policy.” 
“It’s not my place to judge whether they intend to honor that or not. What I can tell you is that they certainly have the capabilities to execute any number of deterrent or employment strategies that are seemingly inconsistent with a No First Use policy,” he said. 
 
Leo Shane III | 1 day ago 
Congress returns to work this week with less than four weeks of scheduled legislative days left on the 2020 calendar and just 16 days to pass a new budget agreement or risk a partial government shutdown. 
Lawmakers are expected to approve a continuing resolution in coming days which would extend fiscal 2020 spending past Oct. 1, likely until the end of 2020. Although Congressional committees have made some progress on advancing budget bills in recent months, most officials do not expect them to be finalized until after the November election, if not later. 
As a result, defense and Veterans Affairs programs are expected to operate for the rest of 2020 at current funding levels, with new program starts and new equipment purchases limited by financial constraints. 
Senate Republicans failed to advance a new coronavirus stimulus package last week, making a compromise on that issue unlikely before the election. Lawmakers in both chambers are expected to work until early October on various issues before a month-long break before voters head to the polls. 
Tuesday, Sept. 15

House Foreign Affairs — 11 a.m. — online hearing
Latin America
Outside experts will testify on economic and political challenges to U.S. national security in Latin America.

House Armed Services — 1 p.m. — 2118 Rayburn
PFAS clean up
Defense officials will testify before the subcommittee on readiness about efforts to repair environmental damage caused by PFAS contamination at military bases.

Wednesday, Sept. 16

House Veterans' Affairs — 10 a.m. — Visitors Center H210
Education technology issues
The subcommittee on technology will discuss the future of education services information technology.

House Foreign Affairs — 10 a.m. — online hearing
State Department IG
Committee members will discuss concerns surrounding the firing of the State Department’s inspector general.

House Veterans' Affairs — 2 p.m. — online hearing
Medical supply chain
VA officials will discuss lessons learned from the coronavirus pandemic about improvements needed in the department’s medical supply chain.

Thursday, Sept. 17

House Homeland Security — 9 a.m. — Cannon 310
Worldwide threats
Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf will testify before the committee on national and international threats.

Senate Armed Services — 9:30 a.m. — G-50 Dirksen
NNSA budget
The committee will discuss the proposed FY21 budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration Budget.

Senate Foreign Relations — 10 a.m. — 106 Dirksen
U.S.-China relations
State Department officials will testify on U.S. and China tensions in the Indo-Pacific region.

House Armed Services — 1 p.m. — 2118 Rayburn
Artificial Intelligence
Officials from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence will testify on their findings and recommendations.
   
     
 

0 comments:

Post a Comment