Call Of Duty 4 Iraq War
Vennie Fireman
I was wounded in Iraq on September 20th, 2005. I was at FOB McHenry, in Hawija. I was one of approximately 18 soldiers that were struck my mortar fire. I was treated at the BAS, however all of the paperwork was pen/paper. I did see a laptop in the tent but have no idea what program it was or what was being stored or how it was being stored. I was called up March 2005 via the Western Union call up, it was after my 8 year ETS but I still went. I was assigned to B Co 451 CA BN (Mt View CA), 3 soldiers and I were attached to the TF 163 Inf of the 116th BCT of the Idaho National Guard. Later that year they left and the 101st Airborne came in, I was with the HHC 1-327 Inf Reg (Lt Col Hudson commanding). That date of my injury the Idaho National Guard medics treated me, pictures were taken, buddy statement produced (still need one more). I am trying to get my records from that day to prove I was wounded. If anyone can help I would be beyond grateful. I have been on this journey for over a decade.
Thank you for the reply. I have already left messages with every pertinent contact, to include the above mentioned. Yesterday Joyce Luton of the DOD Army Records Management Directorate did in fact call me back. We spoke for some time and she indicated that they have a team dedicated to these circumstances. The key factor they will be looking for is what in country system medics were using during that timeframe. She believes the file would be there.
If you were treated by an officer, it should be fairly easy to get the name of the officer that was deployed with the Regiment at that time. You've got a picture of him treating you, if you can get his name and send him the picture, you could probably get HIM to write a statement saying that yes, he provided you treatment on that date, and that it is, indeed him in that picture.
I would suspect if you put one of those announcements in VFW magazine saying "are there any medics who remember treating patients in a medical facility of the 116th Cavalry Regiment at FOB McHenry on 20 September 2005 following a mortar attack" you might get a nibble, which could point you towards that medical officer.
I appreciate the response however that it's not accurate. You do not have to be treated by a medical officer, and only needs to be approved by medical officer, and that would be one that wasn't even present. I already have been in contact with 116 BCT, including their medical attachment. The issue is accessing the in theater medical storage. That has been much easier said than done, including by them. That person in that picture is I'm sure far into his retirement. I've sent all these pictures taken to the 116th BCT and the 163rd infantry regiment. I was with another unit, that was not national guard, but was assigned to them.
If you weren't directly treated by a Medical Officer, it certainly complicates things, because you're right, you'll have to access the electronic health record. But the in-theater health record should have been merged into the full electronic health record, and that, in turn, should have migrated to the VA. I know all my encounter notes from Iraq migrated into my health record stateside when I returned--but all of my visits were in a Combat Support Hospital, I can't speak to a battalion aid station. And it shouldn't matter what unit you belonged to--the electronic health record is generated at the facility you were treated at and is stored based on your social security number (now your DoD ID number). I've been doing DoD healthcare for over 42 years, so trust me on this. IF they created an electronic encounter note (and they may not have at a battalion aid station).
The issue with having the name of the person who treated you isn't whether he's on active duty or not--it's whether he remembers the incident. It isn't as helpful if you weren't directly treated by a Medical Officer (and they were stretching things if they were having a Medical Officer counter-sign the note)--it's that you can find him and get a supporting statement that he remembers the incident and he reviewed all of the notes in accordance with policy and signed off on them, even if there is no record of the encounter, and based on the photographic evidence, he would have signed off on your note and it would have met the criteria.
There are websites that allow you to track down individuals using their name anywhere in the US. As a historian, I've used them and tracked down people who served in Vietnam as medics more than 50 years ago--with their phone numbers, addresses, and e-mail addresses. So once you get a name, the next step gets easier.
And the medic probably knows the name of the battalion surgeon--and he can say if he certified (if he remembers). He may not remember you by name, but a statement from him (or her) saying that he remembers the attack, and he remembers the medic treating X personnel, and that he reviewed the encounter notes and countersigned them will go a long way towards meeting your needs.
The key is "at a remote fire base." In an established Role II or higher facility, there would have been an electronic medical record, AHLTA-T. Possibly at Role I, depending on the situation (at Camp Bucca in 2007-8 we had it in our Role I facilities on the FOB), but not guaranteed.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for acknowledging there is something that is worth staying up all night for, that this is a debate we must continue to have. But this is also a vote we must have. The American people and our troops deserve nothing less than an up-or-down vote.
I disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma when he said we would be somehow hurting our troops by not staying the course. I think we need to change the course. I think this idea that we somehow dishonor our troops by having a free and open debate about this is wrong.
I think it is wrong to say we dishonor our troops when we talk about a change in course in Iraq, because I think it is what they deserve. We need a smart way to get our soldiers out of harm's way and transition to the Iraqi Government. This is about getting this policy right for our troops in the field, about giving them what they deserve: a simple majority vote. That is what we need today.
I hope all of my colleagues will recognize our current strategy in Iraq is not working, that a new strategy based on drawing down U.S. forces is necessary, and this strategy must be implemented now.
After 4 years, over 3,600 American soldiers have been killed, over 25,000 have been wounded, and almost $450 billion has been spent. We cannot wait until next year, or until next month, or until September to change our strategy.
After 4 years, we cannot wait for the Iraqi Government to demonstrate the progress before we begin bringing our soldiers home, and it has shown no indication of a commitment to compromise and reconciliation.
After 4 years, we cannot ask our men and women in the field to continue to risk life and limb indefinitely in the pursuit of a policy that so many of our colleagues across the aisle have now admitted and have spoken out about and said this policy needs to be changed, that it is not working. Talk is talk. But now it is time to vote.
Our troops have done what they have been asked to do. They deposed an evil dictator. They guaranteed free elections in Iraq. We all know there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This has been agreed to by so many military commanders, experts, and Members in this body that it doesn't need to be argued anymore. We recognize true stability in Iraq will only come with political compromise between their various ethic factions. Only Iraqis can reach that agreement. Given that, should our strategy not be transitioning to Iraqi authority now, not some undefined time in the future?
We must push the Iraqi Government to assume the duties it was elected to perform, to lead the process in negotiation and deal-making. Our open-ended commitment is impeding this process and inhibiting the will of the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsibility for their own country.
Nine months ago, the Iraq Study Group proposed a pragmatic change of course that focused on political and economic initiatives, intense regional, and international diplomacy that would tie all nations with an interest in Iraq together, and beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Since the issuance of the Iraq Study Group report, some conditions on the ground have remained the same, and a number have gotten worse. In the last 3 months, more U.S. troops were killed than in any other 3-month period during the entire war.
I urge my colleagues to set aside differences, to forget about past agreements or voting records, and focus on what is best for our troops in the field going forward. We owe it to these brave men and women in the field to get this policy right.
I believe the best thing we can do for our troops, our national interest, and for the Iraqis is to adopt the new strategy proposed by my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed that would begin bringing our troops home, removing the bulk of our combat forces by the spring of next year. We know this cannot be done overnight, and the troops will be remaining to train the police and guard our embassies, and for special forces. We also know it is time to send a message to this Iraqi Government that it is time for them to govern.
Keeping over 160,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is simply not the answer. We need to start bringing them home. In March, I visited Baghdad and Fallujah and saw firsthand the bravery and commitment of our troops. I had a number of meetings set up with Minnesota troops. Of the 30,000 troops who were sent over as part of this surge, 3,000 were from Minnesota. In fact, they are the longest serving Guard unit right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A number of them are now coming home. We rejoice in Minnesota for the ones coming home to their families. But we know that, sadly, they are being replaced by other soldiers from across this country. I remember one of the Congressmen who had gone to Iraq shortly after I did. He came back and talked, as a House Member, about how it reminded him of--going through the market--a farmer's market in Indiana.
Well, that is not my memory from Iraq. What I remember, first, is our troops and how they didn't complain about the heat, or about their extensions, or about their equipment. They only asked me two things: What the State high school hockey tournament scores were, and then they asked if I would call their moms and dads and husbands and wives when I got home.
I did that. I talked to about 50 moms. I have to tell you they told me different stories. They told me about children who were waiting for their dad to come home, that they thought they were going to come home in January, and they were waiting month after month. They told me about how scared they were every time they turned on the TV. They told me about how proud they were of their child but that they wanted him to come home.
My starkest memory of that trip was not some farmer's market in Indiana; my memory was standing on the tarmac of the Baghdad airport where nine Duluth firefighters called me over to stand with them. First, I didn't know what it was. They were there to do their duty. They were saluting in front of a fire truck while six caskets draped in the American flag were loaded onto a plane. They didn't know what fallen soldiers were in those caskets. They didn't know who they were. They just knew it was their duty to salute and they knew the lives of the families of these fallen soldiers would never be the same.
There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about the Minnesota soldiers I met over there. They never complained. They did their jobs. They deposed an evil dictator and guaranteed free elections. Now it is time to bring them home. One thing that struck us in our State is that this is a different kind of war.
Up to 40 percent of the troops fighting in Iraq are members of the National Guard and Reserves.
In many respects, the war has involved a different kind of soldier. In Vietnam, the average age of an American soldier was 19 years old. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the average age of an active-duty soldier is 27. The average age of National Guard members is 33.
Three-fourths of all soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have families of their own, and fully one-half of those who have been killed have left families behind.
Almost 22 percent of the Guard and Reserve members have had multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. For four years, these citizen soldiers have gone above and beyond the call of duty as this war has lasted longer--our involvement has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. These citizen soldiers have made extraordinary sacrifices.
As we see our Guard and Reserve come home in Minnesota, the longest serving unit in this war, we know many have come back injured and maimed. I think I heard it is a thousand in this war across this country who have lost a limb, and 20-some thousand have been injured. Having served and sacrificed for 16 months, these men and women earned their rest and their right to live their lives in peace. But we keep sending them back and we keep sending them back.
All across my State, I have heard a strong and clear message from Minnesotans: Change the course in Iraq. Push for the strategy and solution that will bring our troops home and transition to Iraqi governance.
They want to see a surge in diplomacy, not a surge in troops. It is a message that was echoed all over this country last fall, from Montana to Minnesota, from Pennsylvania to Virginia. The people of Minnesota, like their fellow citizens around the country, recognize what is at stake in Iraq. As I have traveled around our State, I have spoken with many families who have paid a personal price in this war.
I think of Claremont Anderson, who would drive hundreds of miles to attend public events. Every time anybody even brought up the war, he would start to cry. It is because his son Stewart, an Army Reserve major, was killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq.
I think of Kathleen Wosika from St. Paul, MN. In January, her son James Wosika, Jr., was killed while patrolling on foot in an area near Fallujah. He was assigned with the Minnesota Army National Guard First Brigade, the same unit that was extended under the President's escalation. Sergeant Wosika was the third member of his unit to die within a 6-week period.
I also think of Becky Lourey of Kerrick, MN, near Duluth. She is the mother of 12 and a former State senator. Her son Matt was killed when the Army helicopter he was piloting went down north of Baghdad. I watched this Gold Star mother--a woman who has adopted 8 children--comfort her grandchildren, hold her shaking husband, and stand tall for hours in a high school gym in Findley, MN, where hundreds of people came together to gather for her son's memorial service.
Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are parents whose children made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. They are among the many Minnesotans who have told me, without apology, that they want to see a change of course in Iraq. They pray that others will not experience their pain.
Although I opposed this war from the beginning, I recognize many did support it. But many years later, we are now dealing with a dramatically different situation. What we now know about the events and facts leading up to the war has changed dramatically. The conditions inside Iraq have changed dramatically. Our role there has changed dramatically. We need an up-or-down vote today. If we don't have a regular up-or-down vote, as the American people have asked for, we are not going to get the change of course the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended, the change of course that Iraq needs to halt its civil war, or the change of course our military forces deserve.
As of Thanksgiving, as I said, this war has lasted longer than World War II. Have we not asked our men and women to sacrifice enough?
Recently, at the funeral for a fallen soldier, I heard a local priest say our leaders have an obligation to do right by our children when we send them to war. This particular soldier was very tall and very strong. As the priest talked about him, he talked about the fact that even though this young man was over 6 feet tall, he was still our child. He said our children may be over 6 feet tall when we send them to war, but they are still our children.
If the kids we are sending to Iraq are 6 feet tall, he said, then our leaders must be 8 feet tall. I add that if these soldiers are willing to stand up and risk their lives for our country, those of us in Congress must be brave enough to stand up and ask the tough questions and push for the tougher solutions and not be afraid to have an up-or-down vote on a change of strategy in Iraq.
Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are standing tall. The parents with whom I met, whose kids were supposed to come home back in January, have been waiting and waiting for that telephone call, and waiting and waiting for those letters. They have been standing tall all these months.
The members of the Minnesota National Guard whose deployment ceremony I attended a few months ago in Duluth stood tall. The teenage brother and sister I met there who saw their dad and their mom deployed to Iraq at the same time stood tall. The injured soldiers in the VA hospital in Minnesota, recovering from traumatic brain injuries, and in their wheelchairs, with their strength and their spirit are standing tall.
I say to my friends across the aisle, by having an honest and open debate about the war as we have done tonight, we in Congress can stand tall, but we can only stand tall when we allow for a fair and honest vote about the strategy in Iraq.
Our Constitution says Congress should be a responsible check and balance on Presidential power. Congressional oversight of our Iraq policy is long overdue. On behalf of the public, Members of this body have a responsibility to exercise our own constitutional power in a fair minded, bipartisan way, to insist on accountability and to demand a change of course. Ultimately, the best way to help our soldiers and their families is not only to give them the respect and the benefits and the help they deserve, but also to get this policy right.
I hope my friends across the aisle will see the merits of this debate and allow for an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. Our troops and our families deserve nothing less.
Thank you, Mr. President.