|
|
|
November 29, 2007 Opinions |
|
Guest Opinion
Suribachi to Fallujah By Steve Culley One of the icons of World War II was the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima. Even the most oblivious among us has seen the picture or the statue of the Marines raising the flag after a hard fought battle to take the hill from Japanese defenders. The photographer who snapped the picture of the actual second flag raising had no idea that it would be on the front page of almost every American newspaper. This second flag was larger than the first one and the Marines who raised the first one moved on and some of them were killed. Some of the Marines who raised the second flag were killed also.
As luck would have it a Pima Indian named Ira Hayes was there and helped raise the second flag. The war department knew a good public relations opportunity when they saw one and called Hayes and two other surviving marines back to the states for a war bond tour. Hayes didn’t adjust well to the limelight and eventually died drunk. HBO recently ran “Flags of Our Fathers” and told Hayes’ story. Johnny Cash wrote a song about him “Drunkin Ira Hayes.” It is obvious Hayes suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
On Nov. 8, 2004, the Marines were engaged in heavy combat in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The next morning after a harrowing night of combat, photographer Louis Sinco snapped a picture of a weary young Marine smoking a cigarette. It was one of many that he sent back by satellite phone. But it was the picture of Lance Corporal James Blake Miller that caught the attention of newspaper editors nationwide. Miller’s picture appeared on the front page of over 150 major newspapers. Instantly he was the icon for the war in Iraq. He became the Marlboro Marine. Things should have gone well for Blake.
The reality is different. He isn’t doing so well. The Oregonian, and other larger newspapers, carried a three part series on Blake’s life after Iraq. ( Nov. 22-24). A small percentage of the population read it, but most didn’t, there was Thanksgiving turkey and Black Friday shopping and football to compete with his story. The Marines discharged him for a personality disorder after a fight with a sailor aboard ship because the sailor made a whistling noise that sounded like an incoming RPG. He went home and married a local girl, but is headed for divorce, he drinks and drives his motorcycle fast, is depressed and has flashbacks. He has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I fear that he is on the same road as Ira Hayes.
Things are different for Blake’s generation. Veterans of past wars with psychological troubles were largely ignored and left to work it out. After Viet Nam a movement started to get vets some help. It was slow in coming, but in the early 80s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was officially recognized. Actually getting help and some kind of financial help was a different story. There were plenty of hoops to jump through and there still are, but at least part of the general public has heard of the condition and politicians mention it when they want votes.
Reading Blake’s story stirred a lot of things in me. A lot of anger and sadness and some fear. I’ve come to realize that PTSD is always going to be there. I see it when watching the history channel and see World War II veterans who are close to tears remembering lost comrades. Viet Nam vets are starting to recycle into the VA because of Iraq and a tidal wave of Iraqi and Afghanistan vets will be needing some support soon. War is hell some say, and some know, but vets many times are surprised by a worse experience. They encounter the enemy within. One that they can’t shoot. One that sleeps with them and walks with them in the daylight. The nightmares at night and the flashbacks during the day, the intrusive memories and constant anxiety have to be dealt with by explorations and encounters with VA headshrinkers who ask questions like, “how did you feel about that?”
That’s counter to the numbness that a lot of vets try to feel, often with alcohol or drugs. But PTSD won’t be denied. Sooner or later the booze doesn’t work and you have to go inside after the monster. A lot of vets at this point would rather go back to the simplicity of combat and deal with a physical thing that can be wiped out by a full clip and anger. But all that is past and you are here, right now with a monkey on your back.
It is true. Some go to war. Some go to the mall. Veterans have had a different experience than the large percentage of the population. A part of them live different than others. While in a veterans group in the 80s a VA headshrinker said something that always stuck with me. He said, “Most people view the world as a safe place, you guys know better and that is a problem.” A lot of veterans bring the habit of being constantly aware of their surroundings home with them. They call it hyper vigilance. “Triggers,” sights, sounds, smells or events that remind them of combat can pump up adrenaline levels or cause flashbacks. Depression and anxiety can become a way of life.
Some decades after Blake scares me. Veterans are used to firearms and use them at twice the rate of the general population to end their lives. I’ve been there with my finger on the trigger, but I had some real good kids and I loved them dearly. I got grand brats now, they call me Papa. That’s the trouble with forming bonds. No man is an island. You can’t just say, “enough, I’m leaving this damned world, getting my discharge” without affecting others. I hope Blake finds the strength to beat the enemy within because he is an icon now, like it or not. Whichever way it goes for him there will be some vets who say, “If Blake can do it so can I.”
It might be that Blake makes it or that he dies. The question is will they follow him to some kind of peace or to and early end. It must suck, being an icon, having all those people watching when you just want to be left alone. After all the real heroes are dead, or so the survivors think, discounting the fact that they too could have been among the wounded and dead. They survived and feel guilty for doing so. There is something wrong when a 19 year old kid can be made to feel bad because he lived and wasn’t physically wounded. Invisible wounds can be just as bad.
I think it would be a tragedy if some country singer writes a song about the Marlboro Marine.
Letters
County Commissioners Should Seek Advice From BLMTo The Record-Courier:In reading the article about the 18-page document Alternative to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan:
The part of the document that states that the Forest Service (USDA) believes that designations of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use should be made locally. With the words “believes” and “locally,” it doesn’t appear that the Forest Service has (legally?) made any real commitment (double speak?) in the language used in article-deceptive? (no delegation).
I did attend the meeting so described in paper as to public input “desired” by county commissioners at 4 pm, Nov. 16.
I submitted a letter to the chairman in regard to “Rights-of-Way” that I received back in June of 1999 from the BLM-DOI as they are the legal authority (adjudicator) as to the “Pubic Domain” lands that fall within the National Forest and the 30 US Code, Section 22, of the 1872 acts of U.S. Congress, as Congress has delegated the land, “states” and master title plats only (adjudicate) to the BLM.
The letter states: “Rights-of-Ways” (RS 2477) are generally open to mining and locations, but mining rights are subject to use of the land for purposes of right-of-way (not to obstruct traffic in any way). However, there are some “rights-of-ways” such as “material site” which segregates the land from mining and entry (i.e., gravel pits for roads). Nearly all road rights-of-way, including Federal, State and County, have no effect on mining and claim entry since the “surface” and “mineral” estate (resources) remain in “Federal” ownership. The BLM also did imply that the master title plats only show rights-of-way “granted” to the Forest Service as only recent “grants” are shown in plats.
This letter, as submitted, to the “Chair” of the Baker County Commissioners would show that the Dept. Of Agriculture-USFS doesn’t own any of the roads they and the county and others are in “jurisdictional” territory and only acting under “color of law” and the Bull trout, 303 (d), etc. have absolutely nothing to do about any roads. The issues of 303 (d), Bull trout, and elk habitat are more “Red herrings” to the Forest Service shell game. Who’s bluffing whom? Charades?
I told them at the meeting, the bottom line is it’s not over, till it’s over by the U.S. Federal courts, and not local or state’s courts can settle the issue, as like the “adjudicator” (BLM) states “surface” and “mineral” remain in federal ownership, i.e., congressional acts such as the RS 2477 rights-of-way on the public domain that is “open” and “free” by USC 30 Code, Sec. 22 and 26 as to Federal US Code prevail as to the US of Constitutional law, Art. IV, Sec. 3, 2nd paragraph called the “Property Clause” and pre-1976 RS 2477 “ways.”
I told the Chair, regarding the Travel Management Plan “Scoping,” that shows only the protection of “flora and fauna,” as “resources,” extends beyond that (as biased). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a major Federal action that requires a more extensive review to resource impacts (as “resources” does not require the use of “blinders”).
Are the Forest Service officials violating the Hatch Act in that any government employee(s) are not supposed to engage in politics?; that’s the law. Especially while on duty and acting under “color of law.”
I quote from Terry Maley’s mineral law book, in which the BLM-DOI uses in determinations of “legalese” as to adjudicate matters in which the county officials should refer to in this “charade” of “Travel Management Plans” and future litigations “to wear out the people’s substance” as quoted in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, as a grievance? (King George did this to the Colonists).
On page 383 in Maley’s book of case laws, the US Supreme Court in California Coastal Commission vs. Granite Rock Co., the court has ruled the decision distinguished “use” planning laws of Federal land uses vs. “environmental” laws to environment, as separate issues.
The ruling with assumption that Federal land use planning pre-empts (trumps) State’s land use planning requirements from applying to Federal lands. The decision also indicated that States (Counties) may not ‘use’ planning uses to control Federal land uses and/or by denying environmental permits.”
Here we have the county, with the Forest Service officials, to use environmental standards and “roads” or ways as two separate issues, as conflicts, in which the US Supreme Courts’ rulings made clear that “States may not control use(s) of Federal lands by land use planning (by county) or by denying environmental permits.”
The 303 (d), Species Act, and elk habitat are being used (as issues) to control Federal land use(s) that precludes “multi use” to access the Public Domain to Federal land “uses” and the environmental (permits) as a “device” to counter what the US Supreme Court says not to do.
The county commissioners should seek advice from the BLM, it would appear rather than Forest Service, as the Forest Service seems not to make any commitments by their language and implications to county officials.
The county can’t give land uses (permits) on Federal lands of “exclusive uses” to any private (or public) entity on lands and minerals that fall within Federal lands by the letter I gave the “Chair of the Committee.”
The bottom-line is why the county doesn’t approach the BLM-DOI in this “resolution” to county rules and the Granite Rock case, and US Supreme Court rulings? If they don’t, it’s because they don’t want to get to basics of an issue. I’m sure the BLM folks are taking this all in.Bruce Parke,Sumpter, Ore. More On Road ClosuresTo The Record-Courier:A recent Baker City Herald editorial asserted it, “bad advice,” to refrain from listing specific public forest roads that we, the public, prefer to have left open. Given that no rider “regularly travels” all 4,200 miles of roads that are slated for potential closure the editorial further suggests that we provide the Forest Service with written justification specific to each road that we want left open.
I disagree!
While I commend and thank those who have take the time to prepare written comments throughout this debacle, I also recognize the value in choosing to refrain from submitting written comments, and view such a stance as being much more than a “symbolic protest.” To declare in writing one road more important than another is to indirectly imply other roads are of less importance. To get what I want at the expense of someone else losing a cherished road or area simply because that area lacked specific written comments or support is a divisive game that pits one outdoor enthusiast against another. For better or worse, it’s a game that I’m not willing to play.
At the heart of this debate lies freedom of choice. The freedom of choice to travel roads and recreate in areas we have enjoyed for decades, as well as the opportunity to discover and explore some of the few remaining places void of ridiculous rules, regulations, and restrictions.
Mr. Ellis needs specific written comments? Over 6,000 residents of Eastern Oregon have signed a petition in opposition to all further road closures on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest (Try garnering that kind of consensus on any other issue in eastern Oregon!) Over 6,000 people feel that enough is enough. Most importantly, over 6,000 people would like the Forest Service to recognize that the forest roads we don’t travel today are the adventures we’d like to take tomorrow.I hope that was specific enough.
Andy Ballard, Baker City |
|
|
