Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWar IS a Women's Issue, Senator Clinton
I spoke with Senator Clinton back in 2006, when I spent almost three months spearheading Operation House Call, a daily vigil in the summer sauna of Capitol Hill, with a growing number of combat boots representing what Congress's decision to "stay the course" in Iraq was costing our troops. The Senator is smaller and softer in person than she is on TV, but I guess that's the benefit of living in the political and financial Green Zone that affords the luxury of denial; that insulates and isolates an elected official from having to face the human and domestic costs of war.
In an effort to cement herself as the candidate of choice for working- and middle-class women, Senator Hillary Clinton is reaching out to those constituencies by touting issues like child care, Social Security and health care. Speaking to audiences of women political activists, she focuses almost exclusively on domestic policy, framing her presentations in terms of family, health and home, rarely, if ever, addressing foreign policy. Perhaps Hillary thinks women shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about things like war; that women should just leave that up to the men folk. Or perhaps it's because the Senator has no real grasp on precisely how the seemingly-interminable occupation of Iraq and the repeat, extended deployments are destroying the American home front.
As the (separated) wife of an Iraq war veteran, and a card-carrying member of Military Families Speak Out, I have no buffer. I live daily with the fall-out from this war, I hear regularly from the women who are suffering in silence, rambling e-mails dripping with the psychic blood that is being shed all over this nation, long phone calls from weeping wives, worried about their children, their husbands and their families, but rarely, if ever, themselves. We are America's uncounted, unrecognized collateral damage, left to fend for ourselves in a system that denies our experience and dismisses our existence.
Our numbers include: the mother in Seattle who is caring for - and bearing witness to - the grief and despair and suicidal thoughts of her young son who left blood, brains and body parts in the sands of Iraq; The wife of an Iraq war veteran who held her at knifepoint in front of the children while speaking in Arabic in a PTSD-induced disassociative fugue; the wife and child who are living in the dining room of a friend's house because her husband, a veteran, is in jail after bringing home weapons (not unusual) and the military has cut off his pay; the wife who has endured multiple violent assaults by her husband, whom the VA has discontinued treatment for because he's been issued orders for another tour in Iraq; the sister who is taking care of her brother with severe traumatic stress on a waitresses salary because his parents kicked him out and the VA won't help and he's got nowhere else to go.
Among the "acceptable losses" is the wife who asked, "How do you grieve for someone who isn't dead?" She is the primary caretaker of her Marine, suffering severe polytraumas, while also taking care of their three children and her elderly mother. Another casualty is the wife of Oregon Army Reserve Supply Sergeant Matthew Denni, whose PTSD contributed to him butchering his bride and stuffing her corpse in a footlocker.
We're branded "unpatriotic" if we talk about this in public. When we dare to tell the truth, we are slammed and slandered for being anti-military and not supporting the troops. Our loved ones are the troops. Without them - and, make no mistake about it, us, the women who were drafted when our loved ones enlisted and are serving without pay, support or recognition on the home front - there would be no military. And now we've got a female Presidential candidate who is trying to secure the women's vote by talking to women about "women's issues," like family, and children and health care, but refuses to address the domestic disaster that is descending upon military families across this country as the direct result of America's foreign policy. Senator Clinton, aren't we women, too?
Stacy Bannerman, M.S., is the author of When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists and the Families They Leave Behind, (Continuum Publishing, 2006). She can be contacted at stacy@stacybannerman.com.
27 Comments so far
Show AllDaniel David November 1st, 2007 1:24 pm
"Although Hillary is not the best candidate to be running against Republicans, she is the frontrunner.
IF she makes it to office (a very big IF), I think women and families of the military community will find her far more supportive of their real interests (peace) than she can admit while she is running"
So now you have become a psychic fortune teller Daniel? I wonder what you will tell people if Hillary is the candidate, does win, and proceeds to do just what she said she would do when running.
My bet is that Daniel David will be nowhere to be found.
Lobo Gris
Oh,O roe, how about the women Clinton set out to smear to cover-up for her sleazeball husband?
I'd like to see someone pose that question to one of those elitist NOW supporters. Please. She defers to and serves her husband--even when he exploits women, for her own selfish agenda.
HELLO?
Hillary can't guarantee the US would be out of Iraq by 2013, she doesn't want "a rush to war" with Iran but a steady pace wouldn't bother her, she voted to say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.
Mr. X...if you are concerned for the poor..please consider Dennis Kucinich. I have listened to Ron Paul being interviewed. He is really a Libertarian and they do not believe in Social Services..meaning he will get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. This will put the elderly and the disabled..including mentally ill without healthcare and we 47 million that dont have healthcare will still not have it. If you are a young person, you do not want to get rid of Social Security. Read history and learn why we got it. Poverty. Not only does Social Security help the elderly, but the disabled. These are not just ideas, there are real people behind these things whose lives depend on it. Have a heart.
Hillary is the designated keeper of the status quo slow motion train wreck spectacle. Let's keep the train cars piling up for the continued enjoyment of crash and burn fans worldwide.
War is always a mother's most obvious enemy, not just the mothers of those who are participants in the war, but the mothers of the countless children counted as collateral damage. Dead, wounded, subjected to violence, fear and deprivation, the children will always be the largest number of casualties of war and the most innocent victims of war.
Any woman with even an ounce of motherly instinct cannot help but be commited to peace. Why mother's would allow their children to be participants in war, to take the lives and ruin the futures of other mother's children has always been a mystery to me.
Why mother's would stand up before a T.V. camera to profess how proud they were that their son or daughter was fighting to preserve our freedom or doing their duty or dying for a noble cause is something I could never understand.
This article is touching and telling and yet there seems to be no end to women who will defer to someone else to decide the fate of their children by holding them as pawns to achieve goals not worthy of a single life lost.
Yes, Hillary is a scourge on motherhood for her militaristic views. But so are those working in the military industries, the media that supports the war culture, the oil companies who demand the wars, hell the very culture that makes war a possibility.
It all comes down to accepting the concept so often stated and restated by our so-called diplomats - "No option is off the table". Bullshit!
For once let's have a diplomat, a candidate, a president, a public that demands the military option is "not an option".
When people are talking they aren't fighting. I don't care if it takes a hundred years to settle a dispute, as long a people are talking they aren't fighting.
We live in a country that profits handsomely by inventing, building, selling, using and rationalizing the use of WMD around the world. We create imbalances, and circumstances that start wars, we arm both sides of conflicts. We are a shameless and provocative influence and until we become as courageous as we are vindictive, arrogant and petty change is unlikely to occur.
Where are the mothers? Where is the outrage? Why do our children continue to enter the military and who the hell would ever allow your children to make that decision?
I can't answer that question. I don't have children and I can't possibly know the circumstances that mother's face when a son or daughter says I want to be a soldier. I would think it would be nothing short of heartbreak, but I don't see it in the eyes of mothers who tell me how proud they are. It's twisted, It's sad - but obviously some mothers find it acceptable to believe or rationalize that it is necessary and therefore their children and others continue to die, be injured and forever scarred by war.
Jennywren, I am an ordinary woman and I do not understand such an anti-feminist stance regarding the Clinton's marriage. I in no way support Sen. Clinton's views in the political arena. Yet, I am constantly amazed at female on female bashing. If she couldn't control HIM then...What the hell is that? Control him? It was a marriage like many, today. Imperfect and flawed, it is also their business. Why is it you say he does not respect HER, it is their marriage he didn't respect. Sad, to see women, in this year 2007, still actively blaming a woman for all that went wrong.
As a mother of 2 daughter's, the youngest is 18, I, as well, worry because I certainly do not want her anywhere near these wars. Now, it isn't only son's on the field, it is daughters, too.
This war is a human tragedy. I thought a woman candidate for president might show her humanity. The system in itself makes people generally speaking forget their humanity.
For those who think this tragedy is about democracy or any of these other ideas like terrorism wake up to the fact that the entire value system of the United States has been skewed by its way of life and the people who lead it . . .all branches of government.
The American people generally speaking have lost their understanding of human values. Stacy Bannerman recognizes this important fact. Clinton is a politician not a woman.
Hillary is as much a player in the war money game as Bush. She should be relieved of ever serving in public office again.
Ralph Nader says Hilary is on the Arms Committee. Has anyone seen "Why We Fight"? That is a conflict of interest. She both Hilary and Barrack have talked about staying in Iraq for another 5 years.
So Blackwater can shoot more people? I was going to vote for Barrack, but now I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. I believe he really will get us out of Iraq. People keep saying he's going to drop everyone's social security, but that's not true.
He wants to cut all military global spending to stop the US from policing the world and use that money to pay for the people still in the social security system. He then wants to give young people to start their own savings plan instead.
I think that's a good idea since the government has actually already blown all the money that people have paid into social security.
You can see what I'm saying by watching him on the Jay Leno Show http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/311007_b_leno.htm
I want to help the poor. I used to think Barrack would do that, but now I think Ron Paul will do that by stopping the government from printing money out of thin air or borrowing it to pay their military industrial complex buddies. It makes the value of the dollar drop so we get poorer, but the people getting all the money being printed ard borrowed are getting really rich.
If he cut income tax we could pay for roads in our states by things like our gas tax. People who drive on roads and use gas should pay for the roads. The thing is we wouldn't have to go to the Federal Government to get the money back.
If her own husband didn't respect her...why should I? If she can't control him... how the hell can she control the world as owned by the USA?
Ordinary women understand this.
Once she gets the nomination--will the media start attacking her as being weak on security?
Will they bring up the lesbian accusations?
It will be very interesting to see if she is being set up--or she is a media darling because she is part of a "royal elite." Though the media wasnt very friendly to them in the clinton years.
Chelsey would make a better candidate I suspect.
Daniel David strikes with his support of fascism again with his subtle but definitely 'framed' Hillary endorsement. How glad I am to see a 'framer' rep of the oligarchy amongst us.
Gee, Hillary will listen - HAH.
In the meantime, we could try to get this piece or one like it disseminated more widely than here, preachuing to the choir.
andersdl
The administration's care for vets is entirely different now. In the past, military forces were paid extremely low wages and could lose their jobs at home, but that was considered to be a way to keep costs down. To balance this inequity, it was traditional to give returnees all they needed to enter mainstream life again. Thus, Veteran's preference for civil service jobs was instituted, with the belief that military discipline had enhanced their reliability and employability. Free university education. Free medical care for as long as needed. Dignified and caring burials for those who died.
Now, astronomical amounts are paid for warmaking itself but very little for the vets. About half of the Pentagon budget goes to Blackwater and their mercenary ilk, who earn 2-4 times more than US service members. The vets certainly don't receive long-term care or even immediate care once they return to the US. University education? Look at the tricks the Pentagon plays to preclude their qualifying, ending their service period one day before they would qualify.
Some states are taking up the slack, but the Bush administration sure doesn't care about them.
Check this out:
"2009's Too Late
Knowledgeable observers see Clinton as being more than willing to support the use of U.S. power against a terrorist state, provided, that is, she's the one ordering the use of force and not Bush. If she wins next November, that will be a reasonable position once she's sworn in as president in January 2009. Yet Clinton will be pressed in the intervening 15 months to distance herself from anything Bush does.
But the problem, as Bush noted last month, is that the stakes involved in Iran being allowed to do what it likes involve the possibility of mass murder.
While all those interested in stopping Tehran, especially Israel, want desperately to avoid the use of force, the likelihood of meaningful U.N. economic sanctions being enacted are slim to none. With China and especially Russia backing him up, Ahmadinejad can cheerfully thumb his nose at Bush. The only hope that this can be changed is if our European allies -- and our Russian and Chinese antagonists -- no longer perceive Bush as isolated on this issue.
If Hillary Clinton were to stop apologizing for winding up on the same side as Bush on Iran, and instead begin talking more about the cost that American failure on this issue would entail, it might not only strengthen her future position as president, but could also serve to rally international support for sanctions now while they still have some small chance of working.
Waiting for 2009 to make Iran a consensus issue may appeal to some partisans, but the interests of the nation and international peace require that it be moved up on the agenda, even if it means that she may be spurned by some primary voters. Like it or not, both Clinton and pro-Israel Democrats need this to be one issue on which they are willing to support Bush now."
http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/14422/
Wonder what families ripped apart and living a post war nightmare would have to say about fighting, killing, crippling and dying to fight wars for Israel--when Israel has been the bad faith player in the peace process.
As long as we, the women tolerate our sons being sent to war there will be wars. When we, the actual majority in this nation, take a strong stand and say no more, wars will stop. We are not weak, we are not fragile silly wimps, we are powerful and we have to start using this power. I will fight to the death before I allow any one of these neocon animals to force my son into a position where he is killing people for oil or any other commodity. The oath the military takes is to DEFEND our nation---not to attack others. Defend it I will as well. Attack others for their resources I will not.
Although it was tough for families to lose members in previous wars, at least they could grieve and move on with their lives. Unfortunately, many of today's military casualties are "benefitting" from advances in medical technology that have resulted in fewer military deaths but far more military personnel returning home with permanently disfiguring and disabling injuries. Due to Dubya's ongoing cutbacks for caring for injured veterans, their families now have to bear significant cost and time commitment in caring for these victims for the rest of their lives.
== I think women and families of the military community will find her far more supportive of their real interests (peace) than she can admit while she is running
Why would anyone think that? She voted to give Bush authority to illegally invade Iraq. She voted to give Bush authority to illegally attack Iran. She's voted for all of Bush's war-funding.
Hillary is pro-war.
Hillary Bushlite loves war, the way too many men do.
Maybe, Daniel David, if the reality of war from a woman's perspective--in fact, from a human perspective, was given greater attention and recognition than maybe your ratcheted-up frontrunner could offer an alternative view that counters the manufactured consensus but more closely reflected the population's views, instead of triangulating with the NeoCon alternative reality.
It won't happen though--she is bought and sold.
When candidates declare themselves as being unwilling or unable to command the armed forces in a present or future conflict, voters do not elect them to be the commander-in-chief. Any other woman running for president of the strongest military power in the world, America, or even running for Senate from New York, would have this same practical problem to overcome just as much as Hillary Clinton does.
Although Hillary is not the best candidate to be running against Republicans, she is the frontrunner.
IF she makes it to office (a very big IF), I think women and families of the military community will find her far more supportive of their real interests (peace) than she can admit while she is running, and far more supportive than any of the Giuliani-Romney-Thompson alternatives.
Wow.
This piece needs a wide audience and shouldn't get buried with tomorrow's stories.
odoco - The money boys own all the souls in D.C. Clinton sold her soul long, long ago. You can't get to the top until you do. There is only one party in America today. That's the Uncle Buck Party made of of our national politicians and corporate America. Uncle Buck's PR department is mainstream media, a division of Corporate America. They will decide what the issues are and we will follow like good Germans.
Hoa binh
Thank You Stacy!! And we should also give thanks for CD, a place for this to be heard.
This should be an op-ed in every news media(TV,papers,...) in the country along with the heartfelt comments.
But it won't.
Thank you Stacy. I am a Vietnam vet who came home and traumatized my first wife, not as a result of intent, but as a result of deep mental disturbances I experienced as a result of that war. Wherever you are Diane (Alabama), I apologize from the bottom of my heart.
As for Hillary - she politically camouflages herself in the mystique of motherhood and childrearing while simultaneously espousing a foreign policy not unlike that of King George. Defense contractors love her, lobbyists adore her, and the linguists are continually amazed by her use of the language to avoid and evade giving any real answers to questions of substance. And possibly most importantly, she stated that she 'might' refuse some of the executive powers accrued by Bush, but then refused to state which ones she found offensive.
I will, for the first time in my life, not vote for the Democratic candidate if that candidate by Hillary. And in case Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC boys are watching - I have always been a moderate on the issues, so don't paint those opposed to Hillary as being on the fringe of the party; the reality is that Hillary and those who adhere to the status quo are becoming more and more the 'fringe' element in a party that has always fought for social justice and equality. You can't continue to pursue those ideals when the money boys own your soul.
How about we all change tactics and buy Hillary for ourselves?
Bravo! Finally someone deeply affected by this disasterous war speaks out against the most hawish of democratic candidates who just happens to be a woman. Mrs. Clinton's support for this war and the next one is reason enough for any intelligent democrat to oppose her. I hope that the polls showing overwhelming support for her by women is a mistake.
Stacy
Thank you for this report, a behind-the-scenes look at the terrible price women pay for this war in being associated with men who have been ruined by it. Hillary Clinton's refusal to connect its effects to these women's lives does not align with reality. War is ALWAYS a women's issue, not only in its direct affects upon them, but frequently as a matter of personalizing it -- back during the Vietnam War there was that poster created by Lorriane Schneider announcing, "War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things." It caught on like wildfire, and many many women I knew had it up somewhere in their homes.
To state it baldly, Hillary is coming on like a warmonger herself, one who would continue the Bush agenda of perpetual war if elected. It disturbs me so much that I absolutely will not vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate. Integrity is determined by one's motives and actions, and Hillary proves that women who've learned to enjoy the political power-game don't care about human beings any more than GW Bush cares.