Widow: After 8 deployments, Army Ranger takes own life

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

By Keith Eldridge Published: Aug 12, 2011 at 6:41 PM PDT

JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD, Wash. - A soldier's widow says his fellow Army Rangers wouldn't do anything to help him before he took his own life - after eight deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army found Staff Sgt. Jared Hagemann's body at a training area of Joint Base Lewis McChord a few weeks ago.

A spokesman for the base tells KOMO News that the nature of the death is still undetermined. But Staff Sgt. Hagemann's widow says her husband took his own life - and it didn't need to happen.

"It was just horrible. And he would just cry," says Ashley Hagemann.

Ashley says her husband Jared tried to come to grips with what he'd seen and done on his eight deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"And there's no way that any God would forgive him - that he was going to hell," says Ashley. "He couldn't live with that any more."

Ashley says her Army Ranger husband wanted out of the military.

"He just wanted to know what it felt like to be normal again," she says.

Staff Sgt. Hagemann had orders to return to Afghanistan this month for a ninth tour of duty.

Instead, on June 28, Ashley says her husband took a gun and shot himself in the head on base. She claims the Rangers never took his pleas for help seriously.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127623973.html



This is the toll that endless wars taken on humans. There was NO REASON for this to have happened. This is blood that is on Obama and Bush's hands equally and its time people on the left and right STOP making excuses for either of them.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

They Died in Vain; Deal With It

By Ray McGovern

Many of those preaching at American church services Sunday extolled as "heroes" the 30 American and eight Afghan troops killed Saturday west of Kabul, when a helicopter on a night mission crashed, apparently after taking fire from Taliban forces. This week, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) can be expected to beat a steady drumbeat of "they shall not have died in vain."

But they did. I know it is a hard truth, but they did die in vain.

As in the past, churches across the country will keep praising the fallen troops for protecting "our way of life," and few can demur, given the tragic circumstances.

But, sadly, such accolades are, at best, misguided -- at worst, dishonest. Most preachers do not have a clue as to what U.S. forces are doing in Afghanistan and why. Many prefer not to think about it. There are some who do know better, but virtually all in that category eventually opt to punt.

Should we fault the preachers as they reach for words designed to give comfort to those in their congregations mourning the deaths of so many young troops? As hard as it might seem, I believe we can do no other than fault -- and confront -- them. However well meaning their intentions, their negligence and timidity in confronting basic war issues merely help to perpetuate unnecessary killing. It is high time to hold preachers accountable.

Many preachers are alert and open enough to see through the propaganda for perpetual war. But most will not take the risk of offending their flock with unpalatable truth. Better not to risk protests from the super-patriots -- many of them with deep pockets -- in the pews. And better to avoid, at all costs, offending the loved ones of those who have been killed -- loved ones who can hardly be faulted for trying desperately to find some meaning in the snuffing out of young lives.

Best to Just Praise and Pray

Far better to pray for those already killed and those who, in the future, will "give the last full measure of devotion to our country." In sum, by and large, American preachers are afraid to tell the truth. They lack the virtue that Thomas Aquinas taught is the foundation of all virtue -- courage. Aquinas wrote (to translate into the vernacular) that all other virtue is specious if you have no guts.

Writer James Hollingsworth hit the nail on the head: "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." Like the truth.

Those who often seem to ache the most in the face of unnecessary death are mothers. Many mothers do summon the courage to say -- and say loudly -- "ENOUGH! Yes, my son (or daughter) died for no good purpose." They are strong enough to acknowledge, painfully but honestly. He (she) did die in vain. Now we must all deal with it. Stop the false patriotism. And, most important, stop the killing.

Cindy Sheehan, whose 25 year-old son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, is one such mother. She and others have tried to put a dent into the strange logic that attempts to translate unnecessary death into justification for still more unnecessary death. But they get little air or ink in the Fawning Corporate Media. Rather, what you will hear in the days ahead from the FCM is well-honed rhetoric not only about how our troops "cannot have died in vain," but also that Americans must now redouble our resolve to "honor their sacrifice."

President Barack Obama set the tone on Saturday -- "We will draw inspiration from their lives, and continue the work of securing our country and standing up for the values they embodied."

Gen. John R. Allen, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, also primed the pump for the FCM, saying Saturday, "All of those killed in this operation were true heroes who had already given so much in the defense of freedom."

And Joint Chiefs Chairman went even further in professing to know "what our fallen would have wanted" us to do -- namely, "keep fighting." Mullen added that, "it is certainly what we are going to do."

All this was duly reported in Sunday's Washington Post and other leading U.S. newspapers -- without much comment.

Over the next several days, TV viewers will get a steady diet of this kind of disingenuous logic from talk show hosts feeding on the grist from Obama, Mullen, Allen, and others. After all, many pundits work for news organizations owned or allied with some of the same corporations profiteering from war.

Too bad CBS's legendary Edward R. Murrow is long since dead; and the widely respected Walter Cronkite, as well. Taking the CBS baton from Murrow, who had challenged the "red scare" witch hunt of Sen. Joe McCarthy, Cronkite gradually saw through the dishonesty responsible for the killing of so many in Vietnam. He finally spoke up, and said, in effect, any more who die will have died in vain.

(The very long hiatus between Cronkite and Scott Pelley, newly appointed "CBS Evening News" anchor, has been particularly painful. The jury is still out, but I harbor some hope that Pelley may try to follow CBS's earlier, prouder tradition, if by some miracle his corporate bosses allow him to. Given today's prevailing atmosphere of obeisance to Establishment Washington, Pelley certainly has his work cut out for him. We shall have to wait and see if he has it in him to take the risk of rising to the occasion.)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...10808-521.html

[joswitch]

Constant war - tool of totalitarianism.

[snuggletiger]

W's bright shiny legacy and the GOP objects how? this is the fruits of their labor.

[Surlysomething]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127623973.html



This is the toll that endless wars taken on humans. There was NO REASON for this to have happened. This is blood that is on Obama and Bush's hands equally and its time people on the left and right STOP making excuses for either of them.

How long has Obama been in office and you want to blame him for this?
Unbelieveable.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Surlysomething

How long has Obama been in office

As of right now, 2 1/2 years. That is more than enough time to have withdrawn every last single goddamn soldier from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, in that time, OBOMBA has expanded our wars. We're now up to 6: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.

you want to blame him for this?

He is the C-in-C. The generals do what he says, period.

Unbelieveable.

No, what is unbelievable is that people give him a free pass for doing the exact same drek as Bush.

[Surlysomething]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

As of right now, 2 1/2 years. That is more than enough time to have withdrawn every last single goddamn soldier from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, in that time, OBOMBA has expanded our wars. We're now up to 6: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.



He is the C-in-C. The generals do what he says, period.



No, what is unbelievable is that people give him a free pass for doing the exact same drek as Bush.

Seriously, you think it's that easy to do. As convoluted as getting a driver's license is in most places, you think it's that easy to shut down all these operations overseas.

Have you not seen how his hands are virtually tied with everything? It's mind-boggling to me that you're all so naive to "process".

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Surlysomething

Seriously, you think it's that easy to do. As convoluted as getting a driver's license is in most places, you think it's that easy to shut down all these operations overseas.

Have you not seen how his hands are virtually tied with everything? It's mind-boggling to me that you're all so naive to "process".

Excuse me? He is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF! The military undertook an operation, without Congressional consent, to bomb Libya. They are STILL doing so and there has STILL been NO Congressional consent. He can order all offensive combat operations to cease by such-and-such date and they will stop. He can order the withdrawl of all troops. That is expressly one of the powers granted to him as Commander-in-Chief.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024

America and Afghanistan are close to signing a strategic pact which would allow thousands of United States troops to remain in the country until at least 2024, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.


By Ben Farmer, Kabul

10:33PM BST 19 Aug 2011

The agreement would allow not only military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain.

The prospect of such a deal has already been met with anger among Afghanistan’s neighbours including, publicly, Iran and, privately, Pakistan.

It also risks being rejected by the Taliban and derailing any attempt to coax them to the negotiating table, according to one senior member of Hamid Karzai’s peace council.

A withdrawal of American troops has already begun following an agreement to hand over security for the country to Kabul by the end of 2014.

But Afghans wary of being abandoned are keen to lock America into a longer partnership after the deadline. Many analysts also believe the American military would like to retain a presence close to Pakistan, Iran and China.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntil-2024.html

You were saying, Surly?

Panetta: Iraq has agreed to negotiate extended U.S. presence
By Kevin Baron
Stars and Stripes
Published: August 19, 2011

UPDATED AUG. 19, 5:13 P.M. EDT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday that Iraq has agreed to negotiate an extension of noncombat U.S. forces there beyond 2011.

“My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes,’ ” he said during his first small-group press interview since taking office July 1. Panetta is the highest-ranking U.S. official to indicate this so clearly.
Advertisement

Six weeks ago, an exasperated Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to “Dammit, make a decision” about extending the U.S. troop presence beyond the scheduled Dec. 31 withdrawal.

Now, although Iraqi leaders have yet to make a formal request, Panetta said the Pentagon is moving forward, because there is unanimous consent among key Iraqi leaders to address U.S. demands.

Those demands include that Iraqis begin negotiating internally what type of U.S. training force they would like, begin a process to select a defense minister, craft a new Status of Forces Agreement and increase operations against Iranian-backed militants.

After word of Panetta’s comments spread, however, the Iraqi government quickly rebuffed Panetta’s claim.

“We have not yet agreed on the issue of keeping training forces," Ali Mussawi, media advisor to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, told the Agence France Press news service on Friday.

Pentagon press officials also sought to clarify Panetta’s statement.

“The Secretary was asked if there had been progress in our discussions with the Iraqi government since his visit six weeks ago,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement. “He made clear that the Iraqis have said yes to discussions about the strategic relationship beyond 2011, and what that relationship might look like.”

During negotiations with Iraq, the U.S. will continue the drawdown as planned, Panetta said.

“We will fulfill the commitment that we are going to take all of the combat forces out of Iraq.”

In other discussion, Panetta told military reporters that being in charge of the Pentagon was a “much bigger responsibility” than the CIA, where he was director for the past two years.

Talking about the budget fight, he pledged to protect “core” national security functions, including the health, retirement and family programs promised to servicemembers. The interview covered many topics:

BUDGET ISSUES: Panetta pushed back on a White House budget office memo released Thursday that said all federal agencies must make 10 percent cuts to 2013 budget requests due this fall. “They provide all kinds of guidance,” Panetta said of the Office of Management and Budget, but the cuts were not a mandate.

He said he thought the memo was an attempt to get ahead of fall budget talks. Instead, the Pentagon is primarily focused on meeting the $400 billion cuts already required by Congress.

RETIREMENT CHANGES: Panetta said he has not made any decision on an advisory board’s expected recommendations this month to consider ending pensions for military retirees who served 20 years, in favor of starting 401(k) plans. But he was poised to protect troops already in uniform. “I do not want to do anything that breaks faith with those that put their lives on the line,” he said.

At the same time, Panetta said he wants find a way for future volunteers with as few as four years in service to receive some retirement benefits.

FUTURE OP TEMPO: “We’ll continue to have a war on terrorism,” Panetta said. “I think it’s a fair bet that we’re going to continue to confront threats in the world,” maintaining a forward presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Pacific.

“If the Arab Spring has told us anything, it’s that we’re dealing with a lot of turmoil in a very complicated part of the world. … I think we’ll have to continue to maintain that presence that we have there.”

BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA: Panetta said unequivocally that he is not considering putting any American boots on the ground in Libya should Moammar Gadhafi’s regime fall.

“No, not at all,” he said. There has been speculation that the U.S. and NATO could send some type of training force to help rebel opposition forces establish a professionalized security force. Panetta said that effort would fall to the larger diplomatic governance effort, which he sees as a function for the State Department and other NATO governments.

CREDIBLE THREATS FOR 9/11: Panetta said he has seen no new intelligence indicating an immediate threat to the United States on the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence gathered from Osama bin Laden’s compound indicated the al-Qaida leader wanted the organization to hit the U.S. on that date, he said. “But I have to tell you, beyond that, I don’t know of any specific intelligence that represents, you know, kind of immediate threats on 9/11.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/panetta-...sence-1.152633

[Your Plump Princess]

That's so sad, but honestly? Just add his name to the list of service members offing themselves due to PTSD.

I also have a question to Brooklyn Red Leg, What do you think would happen if Obama pulled every single soldier out of these countries, say, tomorrow?

[imfree]

Originally Posted by Your Plump Princess

That's so sad, but honestly? Just add his name to the list of service members offing themselves due to PTSD.

I also have a question to Brooklyn Red Leg, What do you think would happen if Obama pulled every single soldier out of these countries, say, tomorrow?

Great question, YPP, as we probably still have a bunch of people who are Still In Saigon!

Trust me, even peace time military service changes the way a person thinks, PTSD is unthinkable!

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Your Plump Princess

I also have a question to Brooklyn Red Leg, What do you think would happen if Obama pulled every single soldier out of these countries, say, tomorrow?

We would find ourselves with fewer enemies across the planet. We would find our security situation vastly improved as we would not be antagonizing countries that have thermonuclear weapons (Pakistan, China and Russia among others). We would also see a savings of quite a bit of our national treasure as we are maintaining over 700 bases in 130 countries. There would also be no new blood of innocents on our hands for every child or non-combatant that gets labeled as 'collateral damage' when idiots drop 224kg of high explosives and steel shrapnel on everything in sight.

[Mathias]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

We would find ourselves with fewer enemies across the planet. We would find our security situation vastly improved as we would not be antagonizing countries that have thermonuclear weapons (Pakistan, China and Russia among others). We would also see a savings of quite a bit of our national treasure as we are maintaining over 700 bases in 130 countries. There would also be no new blood of innocents on our hands for every child or non-combatant that gets labeled as 'collateral damage' when idiots drop 224kg of high explosives and steel shrapnel on everything in sight.

We'd also find ourselves with thousands more Americans who are unemployed in an already bad economy. Not that I'm disagreeing here but safegaurds need to be put in place before they come home so that they can be taken care of.

[joswitch]

Originally Posted by Mathias

We'd also find ourselves with thousands more Americans who are unemployed in an already bad economy. Not that I'm disagreeing here but safegaurds need to be put in place before they come home so that they can be taken care of.

How about this:

6 to 12 months (re)training in the appropriate armed forces specialist corp e.g. Engineers, Communications, Electronics, Mechanics etc. With the added benefit to the nation that such re-patriated units could do their training while engaged in on-the-job public works repairing / improving the infrastructure of the nation. Training and de-mobbing to be "staggered" so that soldiers "trickle" steadily back into the job market, rather than "flooding" back in.

Outcome:
- De-mobbed soldiers return to civilian life with both a qualification and EXPERIENCE working in a relevant field, in the USA itself.
- National economy is enabled with a boost to the infrastructure.
- Public sees re-training soldiers directly and unequivocally helping society = good feeling / gratitude in response, likely to be reciprocated.
- Probability of amiable interactions between public and re-training soldiers increases, improving chance of successful reintegration into society.

ThankyouverymuchIacceptcheques.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Mathias

We'd also find ourselves with thousands more Americans who are unemployed in an already bad economy. Not that I'm disagreeing here but safegaurds need to be put in place before they come home so that they can be taken care of.

Well, the short term benefit of them coming home would be they would be spending their pay in local economies all over the US.

[Mathias]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

Well, the short term benefit of them coming home would be they would be spending their pay in local economies all over the US.

That's just it though. There needs to be long term measures put in place.

[joswitch]

Originally Posted by Mathias

That's just it though. There needs to be long term measures put in place.

^See my post, above.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Mathias

That's just it though. There needs to be long term measures put in place.

The long term benefit is that the government will stop pissing away those resources on maintaining an overseas empire. Government spending does not bring about a healthy economy as it can only create temporary bubbles that eventually pop.

The Broken Window Fallacy

[joswitch]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

The long term benefit is that the government will stop pissing away those resources on maintaining an overseas empire. Government spending does not bring about a healthy economy as it can only create temporary bubbles that eventually pop.

The Broken Window Fallacy

And if that^ goes hand in hand with lower taxes across the board (not just for the rich and the giant corporations) that will reduce a significant overhead for people doing business, including the self-employed, start-ups, and small business.

Indeed that may be the difference between earning a living and going broke for many. E.g. in the UK you don't get (income) taxed on the first £7.5K of earnings / profits p.a. and you only have to pay £10ish a week NI (UK's SS) if your net profit is below £5.5K. Hence, it is viable for me to be self-employed here. In contrast, in Spain the MINIMUM SS paymemnt was €220 a MONTH, whether you earned anything or not. So in Spain I had to find someone else to give me a job. Self-employment there was out of the question. Except on the grey & black market, of course.

A lower tax environment also reduces the overhead for existing employers taking on employees, making new job creation more likely. And it encourages inward investment and local production (see also, Hong Kong) helping create.... more jobs!

[joswitch]

Ironically, in high tax countries, (like Spain) almost all people cheat on their taxes routinely. They have to, just to survive. So the State actually recieves less money!

When taxes and laws are excessive or morally obnoxious (trying to take money opff you when you can't afford rent / clothes / food) people cheat - en masse. And consider themselves righteous in doing so.

While I consider taxes in the UK onerous enough, they are lower than many other European regimes. People cheat less often here. Collection rates and revenues are higher here than in Spain. Go figure.

[Mathias]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

The long term benefit is that the government will stop pissing away those resources on maintaining an overseas empire. Government spending does not bring about a healthy economy as it can only create temporary bubbles that eventually pop.

The Broken Window Fallacy

I'm talking about for the soldiers who come home so that there would be fewer stories like this

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Originally Posted by Mathias

I'm talking about for the soldiers who come home so that there would be fewer stories like this

Mathias, does it NOT compute that ALL that money the US government is pissing away will NO LONGER be there to be pissed away? That is a net benefit for the economy. That is money that, instead of being confiscated to building more bombs, can instead be used by the businesses to expand their operations? That means they need more people to work,

http://mises.org/daily/3788

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Red Leg

Mathias, does it NOT compute that ALL that money the US government is pissing away will NO LONGER be there to be pissed away? That is a net benefit for the economy. That is money that, instead of being confiscated to building more bombs, can instead be used by the businesses to expand their operations? That means they need more people to work,

http://mises.org/daily/3788

First, this demilitarization being discussed will never happen. The world would destabilize and conflict would explode around the world.

Second, after the Vietnam War defense spending in the US was reduced. This lead to the “hollow” military at the end of the seventies. Further, the Congress did not return the money to the taxpayers … to grow the economy. Instead the Congress spent the newly released money on social programs. Do you really see Democrats and liberals that destroy the US military, then releasing the money to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts? Heck, they will just spend the money!

Perhaps some “proof” to my first point? The Obama Administration and their supporters are making noises about their apparent success with their Libyan campaign. That campaign never would have succeeded without the power of the US. They very military you want to destroy.

Example, the US maintains forces in Korea. They are only a tiny fraction of the army on the other side of the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). Their purpose is a tripwire. To attack South Korea with a conventional military invasion, like in the 50's, the North Koreans would have to go through the US Army. That would be an act of war against the US.

Further, the North has a crude nuclear weapons program. If the US left, the South would feel open to attack and intimidation by those weapons. The South would respond with their own nuclear weapons program. Also, Japan would go nuclear. So the withdrawal of US forces could lead to a nuclear arms race in Asia. Does anyone want that?

If the US left the Middle East, it is entirely conceivable the Iranians would threaten the worlds oil supply. Just what would be their price?

The Chinese military is growing each year. Without the US as a check on their power … our we looking to a repeat of the Japanese example. That ended in war.

The US military is need more than ever.