Now Playing: Lietta Ruger July 4, 2005
Topic: Members Speak Out

Now Playing: Judy Linehan
Topic: Members Speak Out

A plea from Military Families Against the War in Britain to friends in America

Now Playing: Stacy Bannerman
Topic: Media Involvement

Footing the bill of war

By Nicole Brodeur

Seattle Times staff columnist

[Article excerpts. Click here to read the entire article. ] 

Dance in them, drink from them, wear them to bed.

As long as the military boots came home to Kent with her husband in them, Stacy Bannerman doesn't care what he does with them. Because hundreds of pairs of boots have come home empty, their owners lost to the bomb blasts and gunfire of the war in Iraq.

... But it is another thing entirely to stand before 1,500 pairs of war-worn boots, as the region will do when "Eyes Wide Open" comes to Fisher Pavilion this weekend.

The exhibit, sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, represents the American soldiers who have lost their lives; and 1,000 pairs of civilian shoes, representing Iraqi civilian casualties.

 ... And while she has never seen "Eyes Wide Open" in person (the exhibit has been traveling around the country since January 2004), Bannerman is urging people to go.

It may be the only way for those who have not watched a loved one leave for war to get a sense of "the human cost."

And there's this: The war in Iraq is the first long-term military engagement where the burden has not been more shared by those at home. No rationing. No war bonds. No appeals to make cutbacks.

Even the Vietnam War was more closely felt here, Bannerman said, "because the draft was operative."

While her husband was in Iraq, Bannerman couldn't open her blinds for fear of seeing a government vehicle pull up, bearing bad news.

"I was absolutely powerless," she said.

She wants others to see the war beyond deployment and homecoming ceremonies.

"We are so geared to the 'Johnny comes marching home,' that we don't want to see the millions of people left behind," she said. Or the ones who never came home.

Bannerman imagines "Eyes" will be something like standing at Arlington National Cemetery's Section 60, an area set aside for soldiers killed in Iraq.

Can she put that experience in words?

There was a long pause. The start of tears. And then:

"I don't know that I will ever be able to. There is something unspeakably sad about a plot of land being set aside by our government, waiting for the dead bodies of our children and husbands and wives."

Bannerman knows she is one of the lucky ones.

"He came back whole, and he came back alive."

And his boots?

"They're in the closet," she said. Seems Sgt. Bannerman has re-upped.

"He's using them still."

Nicole Brodeur's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Reach her at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

Now Playing: Stacy Bannerman, Lietta Ruger, Susan Livingston
Topic: Local Lobbying

Families want Guard excused from Iraq

 

MICHAEL GILBERT; The News Tribune
Published: March 8th, 2005 12:01 AM

Family members of soldiers serving in Iraq urged Gov. Christine Gregoire on Monday to call on President Bush to release Washington National Guard troops from service in Iraq.

The family members, who oppose the war, said the heavy use of guardsmen in Iraq is diminishing the state’s response to natural disasters and creating long-term hardships for the part-time soldiers and their families.

Their meeting with an aide to Gregoire follows similar efforts in at least two other states.

Members of the same groups – Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace and Veterans for Peace, among others – rallied in Salem, Ore., last week to press a similar resolution to Oregon’s governor and lawmakers.

In Vermont, the majority of residents participating in the state’s annual March 1 town meetings endorsed a call for their governor to ask for the return of the state’s deployed guardsmen.

And in Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked the Pentagon last week to send home 1,500 of his state’s guardsmen and their helicopters, so they’ll be available for what is expected to be a difficult fire season.

The families who met in Olympia on Monday with Antonio Ginatta, an executive policy adviser for Gregoire, presented a mix of political and practical considerations. They contend the president’s primary reasons for war in Iraq “have been proven false or declared invalid.”

Long deployments are straining police and fire departments and other public safety agencies, many of whose members are part-time soldiers, they argue.

And there is a social cost.

“We need to be looking at the devastating effect these deployments, the unprecedented use of the Guard and Reserve, has had on families,” said Stacy Bannerman of Kent, whose husband is a Washington guardsman in Iraq.

Others who met Monday with Ginatta included Susan Livingston, whose brother, Spc. Joseph Blickenstaff, died in Iraq in 2003 while deployed with the first Fort Lewis Stryker brigade. His family is also active in the anti-war effort in Oregon, his home state.

Ginatta said he will present the group’s concerns to Gregoire and told the families they could expect to talk more with the governor’s office.

“The reintegration of our troops, getting them back into our state with as seamless a transition from combat to kitchen, is very important to the governor,” Ginatta said. But he added the groups’ demands “raise some very heavy federal questions that we have to look at.”

The National Guard generally works at the direction of governors unless the president calls units to active-duty service.

About 3,200 Washington guardsmen are in the process of returning home after a year in Iraq with the 81st Brigade Combat Team. It was the largest deployment of the Washington Guard since World War II.

But members of the groups that met in Olympia on Monday say their message is still relevant because U.S. troops are likely to be in Iraq for several years and Washington’s part-time soldiers might be sent back.

Michael Gilbert: 253-597-8921

mike.gilbert@thenewstribune.com

Now Playing: Stacy Bannerman on Hardball with Chris Matthews
Topic: Media Involvement

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for March 2 

Transcript of that portion of the MSNBC show that included Stacy's participation.

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 

As American troops continue to be shipped off to Iraq and to Afghanistan, the wives of soldiers are left behind to take care of business at home. 

Karen Houppert is a freelance journalist who spent two years profiling military wives and is the author of the new book “Home Fires Burning:

Married to the Military for Better or Worse.”  Also with us is Stacy Bannerman, whose husband, Lorin, is a reservist serving now in Iraq. 

Thank you, ladies, both for joining us. 

I want to start with Karen. 

What surprised you about the military wife experience in these wars? 

KAREN HOUPPERT, AUTHOR, “HOME FIRES BURNING”:  I think the most surprising thing I learned in the course of reporting for this book was how many wives actually were opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq, the U.S.  invasion there.  That actually came as quite a surprise to me. 

But, also, I was surprised to discover that, while the military on paper has a lot of support programs out there for wives, when it comes to the actual execution, they don‘t do so well.  And...

Let me go right now to Stacy Bannerman, because I think we‘ve got exhibit A here. 

Stacy, where do you stand on whether the United States should have gone into Iraq? 

STACY BANNERMAN, WIFE OF U.S. SOLDIER SERVING IN IRAQ:  Well, I believe that we shouldn‘t have.  Clearly, we shouldn‘t have, because we didn‘t have the facts right and the rationale presented to go to war was based on lies. 

MATTHEWS:  What did you make of the elections over there a couple weeks back? 

BANNERMAN:  Well, they conducted them and now they‘re over.  That was the third reason given for the troop presence being in Iraq.  But yet we haven‘t brought an exit strategy together to bring them home. 

MATTHEWS:  Among the other wives in your situation whose husbands or friends who are males whose wives are serving over there, to keep it equal here, is there a lot of dissidence—dissent on this policy of going into Iraq, even though you have spouses over there? 

BANNERMAN:  Well, I think that there‘s an increasing number of military wives, whether they be married to men in the regular Army enlisted or in the Army National Guard and Reserves, such as I am, that have really begun to question why it is the troops are over there and certainly why they‘re there after all of this time. 

MATTHEWS:  Are you anti-war? 

BANNERMAN:  I believe that we‘ve got other options available to us, and we certainly did in Iraq.  We didn‘t need to launch an attack on this country. 

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

BANNERMAN:  There were other things that could have been pursued, and that wasn‘t done.  I think that was a real mistake. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, that‘s a common argument, but are you anti-war?  Are you a pacifist? 

BANNERMAN:  Oh, yes, I am. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, why did you marry a guy in uniform? 

BANNERMAN:  My husband is in the Army National Guard.  The Army National Guard is not intended as being primarily overseas combat troops.  That‘s not what they were about.

MATTHEWS:  But they do wear uniforms and they carry weapons.  And the purpose for their existence is fighting wars when the democratic government that we all have to live under chooses to fight those wars.  Didn‘t you see all that coming? 

BANNERMAN:  Chris, the primary purpose of the National Guard is actually as a state-based force to provide assistance to their state and local communities.  That‘s what they‘re recruiting the National Guard for and that is what those ads still say, even though those troops are now being sent overseas and are 42 percent of the boots on the ground. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Let‘s go to Karen.

HOUPPERT:  Oh, sorry.  I was just going to...

MATTHEWS:  Karen Houppert, your thoughts on this.  Is this a common view, that spouses of people who serve in the guard don‘t think of themselves as G.I. wives or spouses; they think of themselves as having a husband who is involved with the home guard, more or less? 

HOUPPERT:  Yes, I think that‘s true.  And I also think it‘s interesting to note that about 40 percent of the soldiers that are stationed over—or that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan also think it‘s a mistake for the U.S. to be over there.  And about 42 percent of them think that we are at greater risk of terrorist attack now than we were before this.  That‘s...

MATTHEWS:  How can they express that view?  Is there any way they can legitimately express that view while their husbands or wife is in uniform? 

HOUPPERT:  It‘s very difficult, I think.  There‘s a lot of overt and covert pressure to not speak out against the administration‘s views. 

And, for soldiers, that‘s particularly difficult.  For wives, it shouldn‘t be so difficult, but it is.  And many of them fear that it jeopardizes their husband‘s job if they speak out. 

MATTHEWS:  You know, we‘ve been to Pendleton and we‘ve met the young Marines and their wives, in some cases, who were totally supportive of the effort they have to pursue as military active members. 

They are a different category than National Guardsmen.  They want to fight the war because they are trained to fight it, and they believe this cause is justified, in most cases.  But in either case, whether you‘re a Guardsman or Reservist or a regular Army or Marine, you come home with a couple of legs or limbs missing, a couple of arms missing, you come home with brain damage, losing your sight, all kinds of damage, but you survive. 

What did you learn about that experience for the spouse, Karen? 

HOUPPERT:  I think it‘s a very, very difficult recovery process when the soldiers come home wounded, obviously.  But also even if there aren‘t physical wounds, there‘s post-traumatic stress syndrome that a lot of them struggle with. 

And it‘s very hard for families.  Also, another issue that comes up quite often is that the wife has been independent on her own, making decisions on her own for a year.  And it‘s sometimes difficult for the husband to squeeze back into family life that has gone on without him.  And those are the issues that the Army is really not so good at helping families address. 

MATTHEWS:  Karen, what are your views about the general—or, Stacy, your views about the general situation of the military and how it treats spouses and family life? 

BANNERMAN:  Well, I believe that, again, especially with the Army National Guard spouses, we have not been provided really with any kind of preparation for deployment.  We do not have access to the same level of support and resources that regular military wives do. 

For example, the gentleman who was sent to kind of work with a—the group of military wives, National Guard wives, was ex-Marine.  Now, that‘s not really conducive to developing good, strong bonds, that emotional support that these women need when their husbands are called to serve and sometimes given less than 30 days notice, pulling them out of homes and out of jobs and out of families that they weren‘t prepared for. 

I think the military has really fallen short in meeting the needs of the wives.  And that‘s one of the reasons, honestly, that we‘re seeing the diminished return rate, reenlistment rate of National Guard and Reserves. 

MATTHEWS:  Are you angry, Stacy, about this whole situation, this war? 

BANNERMAN:  I am—I am greatly concerned about it.  I do have some anger about it, because I think a gross violation of the national trust has happened with this. 

MATTHEWS:  So, you believe it‘s been misused by the president? 

BANNERMAN:  Unquestionably. 

MATTHEWS:  OK.  It‘s great having you on. 

BANNERMAN:  Thank you. 

MATTHEWS:  We don‘t hear many voices like yours.  And I‘m glad you came on. 

BANNERMAN:  Thank you. 

MATTHEWS:  Stacy Bannerman, whose husband is serving in the Guard in Iraq right now.

And, of course, Karen Houppert, who has written this new book “Home

Fires Burning,” which contains a lot of stories like this, “Married to the

Military For Better or Worse.‘

Thank you, ladies, for coming on. 

HOUPPERT:  Thank you for having us.

BANNERMAN:  Thank you. 

Now Playing: Stacy Bannerman, Judy Linehand & Sherrie Tilstra
Topic: Local Lobbying
Subject: Letter to Congressman Adam Smith

 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:30:18 -0800

 

Dear Congressman Smith:

 

On behalf of Military Families Speak Out members Judy Linehan, Sherrie Tillstra, and myself, I would like to thank you for meeting with us in your Tacoma offices on the 20th.  I understand you've got your work cut out for you with the current administration, and the Republican majorities in both Houses.   We're hoping you will utilize your seat on the Armed Services Committee to call for a Hearing and subsequent vote of confidence/no confidence on Donald Rumsfeld.  The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is just one example of his failure of leadership, as you're well aware.

 

I would also like to remind you of our request that you contact Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell and join her in calling for hearings regarding the plan to extend call-ups for Reservists.  This administration's poor planning, refusal to listen to military advisors, and lack of consideration for the citizen soldiers has resulted in a gross abuse of power and a contractual breach of the terms under which these weekend warriors were recruited and signed up for e.g. the Stop-loss policy.  Furthermore, these soldiers (and their families) are not provided with the same training, treatment, and benefits of regular enlisted, although they are now being deployed at almost the same rates, and often for longer tours-of-duty.  In addition to adding your name to the Letter to the President from 16 members of Congress that I shared with you, please consider calling for Washington State's Democratic Governor, Christine Gregoire, to bring the Washington State National Guard home.  Now.

 

I appreciate your concern about creating more bureaucracy, but clearly the State Department is not doing its job, and one of the costs of the invasion of Iraq is the significant damage to this country's reputation and international relations. Furthermore, the Bush administration has demonstrated that it's got no plan whatsoever for 'securing the peace', and it certainly didn't consider non-violent options prior to invading the country and initiating a war that's killed over 1,300 U.S. soldiers and at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians.  Now, more than ever, it's critical for the future of this nation, and the world, to support the bill to establish a Department of Peace, which will be reintroduced by Dennis Kucinich in the upcoming months.

 

As discussed, the one-time death 'benefit' of $12,000 is ludicrous, and I will look for you to address that.  For bereaved military families and spouses to find themselves homeless, and forced to go to food shelves and welfare offices after their loved one died serving this country is reprehensible and morally abhorrent.  Perhaps the gross tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy could be revoked as a way to pay for this and some of the other costs of this war.  I am grateful for your efforts to support the troops, but was disappointed by your hesitancy to call for an immediate exit strategy.   I will state what you diplomatically skirted around:  The situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate; the window of opportunity for the occupation to even vaguely resemble a 'success' hasn't just closed, it's shattered; and the American presence has exponentially increased terrorist activity in that country and elsewhere.

 

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home from this reckless, ill-conceived war based on lies.  Help President Bush to honor his pledge to end world tyranny: get the United States out of Iraq.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Stacy Bannerman, M.S.

 

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger after the Nov, 2004 Election
Topic: Members Speak Out

Now Playing: Kerry Campaign
Topic: Politicians in Action

 

Kerry campaign courts military-family voters

By Warren Cornwall
Seattle Times staff reporter

[Excerpts below. Click here to read the entire article.] 

Lietta Ruger, mother-in-law and aunt to soldiers sent to Iraq, has spent months speaking out against the war.

Last night was the first time she publicly spoke out for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Ruger and her husband drove from southwestern Washington yesterday to meet in a Kent living room with several women touring the country for the Democrat's campaign in a bid to show that military families are unhappy with President Bush's handling of the war.

"I think the only opportunity this country has is for a change in commander-in-chief," Ruger said to the roughly dozen people who gathered over coffee and chocolate-chip cookies.

... Ruger, who grew up in a military family, has been active with a national anti-war group called Military Families Speak Out. She said she opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset, feeling it had no relationship to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that put the nation on a war footing. In late 2003, she turned to Internet chat rooms in search of support and a community.

There she found the military families group and began speaking out against the war, breaking what she described as a taboo among military families against criticizing the president. But she didn't decide to publicly back Kerry until a recent meeting between several Washington military families and members of the Kerry campaign, including Wade Sanders, an undersecretary of the Navy in the Clinton administration.

Regardless of who wins the presidential race, Ruger plans to continue pushing for better protection of the troops.  

The restriction on criticizing the president wasn't apparent in Stacy Bannerman's living room yesterday.

The people there, nearly all of them women, spoke of relatives in the military going without proper supplies, of constant anxiety that the latest combat casualties would include a loved one, and of frustration with a war with no apparent end in sight.

Several praised 18 soldiers who reportedly refused orders to take part in a recent convoy amid concerns that they didn't have adequate security or equipment.

Bannerman is a member of Military Families Speak Out. Her husband, Army National Guard Sgt. 1st Class Lorin Bannerman, is serving at Logistical Support Area Anaconda. The massive supply base northwest of Baghdad is frequently the target of mortar shelling by insurgents, and is run by Washington state's 81st Brigade Combat Team, an Army National Guard unit.

Officials there recently said they have requested more soldiers to quell the mortar attacks, but they have been turned down, according to a report in The Baltimore Sun.

"They're operating under surreal shortages," Bannerman said. She said her husband's service in the National Guard was supposed to end in June, but he now is being required to stay until April.

Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or wcornwall@seattletimes.com

A soldier's wife blasts Bush for 'backdoor' draft 

Monday, October 18, 2004 

 By SUSAN PAYNTER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

[Excerpts below. Click here to read entire article.]

Stacy Bannerman has a big stake in the war in Iraq -- 6 feet 1 1/2 inches big.

But to her, supporting the troops -- including the tall, likable National Guardsman named Lorin to whom she is married -- does not mean yellow ribbons or an unconditional salute to her husband's commander-in-chief.

The Kent woman is featured in a TV ad hitting swing states this week that blasts Bush for the so-called "backdoor draft," which is extending the tours of thousands of Guardsmen like Lorin. The ad, sponsored by Texans for Truth, is just one of the ways Stacy is actively questioning the war her husband is being kept on to fight.

For many in the area who have joined groups like Military Families Speak Out, the act of standing up and speaking out is a new and tentative process.

When he married her on Dec. 23, 2000, her husband knew he was marrying someone with a point of view. She had been the first white executive director of the Martin Luther King Center in Spokane.

In turn, Stacy knew her husband had joined the Guard soon after high school and had served almost 16 years. So when he told her he'd decided to answer a (pre-war) call to "re-up" with an eye toward fighting forest fires and securing retirement "bennies," she was surprised but not worried.

Then came war. And soon after -- on a day Stacy was folding thousands of school fliers for a peace-and-poetry workshop -- Iraq.

Lorin should have been home this summer. His 20-year commitment to the Guard ended June 22. Now his tour in Iraq won't end until late March or early April -- a year and four months since the last time she saw him.

 

"This is the work. This is the critical issue of our time. It's about integrity and defining the soul of America," she said.

Sure, she's been shouted at, told she is "jeopardizing the mission" and not supporting the troops.

"But silence is not support. My husband is 'the troops' and if exercising my right to speak up is truly jeopardizing the mission, if the mission is that tenuous or questionable, then we've got no business being there," she said.

Now Playing: Stacy Bannerman
Topic: Members Speak Out

Senator Warner Misses Meeting with Military Families Speak Out Published on Monday, October 11, 2004 by Common Dreams

by Stacy Bannerman

Stacy Bannerman Wife of National Guard Soldier Stop-lossed in Iraq American Citizen Registered Voter Kent, WA October 6, 2004 Senator John Warner, VA Russell Senate Building United States Senate Washington D.C. Senator Warner: For shame. You deployed our husbands and children to Iraq, which will take a year or more out of their lives, if not actually costing them their lives, and you couldn’t spare fifteen minutes of yours? You sent your military legislative assistant, Cord Sterling -- anyone with a name like that is clearly not a member of the working class that’s largely responsible for providing the targets, excuse me, troops in Iraq -- to meet several dozen members of Military Families Speak Out. We came to your office on October 1st, at our own expense, with the understanding that you would be there. You were not. Apparently listening to the concerns of the family members who actually have loved ones in Iraq, or have gotten their bodies back from there, just isn’t important to you, who is sworn to serve the public. Since you avoided us—and mind you, our group included several members from the State of Virginia, with the power to vote you out of the very office they voted you into, let me re-cap. Although we’d called in advance to confirm our appointment, and provided your office with the size of our group, we weren’t offered a place to sit, or a private conference room. Instead, we were forced to stand in the rotunda. Now, I’m just guessing, but I’d wager that’s not the reception given to Halliburton. Incidentally, it seems that after a dispute with the government about a couple million in overcharges, Halliburton said, “We may withhold all or a portion of the payments to our subcontractors.” Let me bottom-line this one for you, Senator Warner: What that means is that the soldiers in Iraq have had, at times, to subsist on one meal a day and very low water rations, in a desert where temperatures rise to more than 130 degrees during the day. Wow, how’s that for supporting the troops?! Since we’re on the topic of money, when I asked your assistant why some of the National Guardsmen in Iraq are getting paid about five bucks an hour, and yet government-paid private contractors are compensated to the tune of upwards of a thousand dollars a day, his first response was: “We don’t have any control over that.” Senator, you may want to give your assistant a refresher course in precisely which entity ultimately pays members of the military and the major private contractors in Iraq. Perhaps realizing that his ignorance was showing, Cord said, “Well, I can’t speak for the Senator.” That, of course, begs the question: What was he doing there? Moving right along, then, since we had a lot to cover in a very little time, we then asked, “Why is the administration telling the American people things are getting better at the same time that our loved ones on the front line are telling us that things are getting worse?” Perhaps it’s easy to dismiss first-hand accounts, but how about the National Intelligence Council’s report pointing to the possibility of a civil war before the end of 2005? How about the Army lowering its recruitment standards to increase the number of troops in order to put more boots on the ground? How about the fact that 1,100 U.S. soldiers were wounded in August, setting a new record, and that the 80 U.S. soldiers killed in September made it the second-deadliest month of the year? Does that get your attention? Finally, how come the public is being told things are so much better at the same time that there are reports of plans to triple the size of the Reserve Mortuary Affairs Company by the middle of next year? Speaking of the dead, something this administration has been loath to acknowledge, thirty members of Military Families Speak Out have buried their husbands, wives, daughters, or sons. Celeste Zappala, mother of Sherwood Baker, the first Pennsylvania National Guard soldier to be killed in action since World War II, showed a picture of her son to your assistant, as did several other grieving moms. His response? Nothing. No “I’m sorry for your loss”, no “Please accept my condolences.” I had heard politics could strip you of your humanity, but I thought you guys had better public relations skills. Cord, I’m almost sorry for you that you were sent in the Senator’s place. Almost, not quite. However, I meant it when I said, “God be with you.” as you were retreating into your cubicle. Unlike the current administration, which still hasn’t put together an exit strategy to bring the troops home, when we realized we’d been given flawed intelligence, and that you weren’t actually there, we knew when to leave. But Senator, we will be back. Seriously, Stacy Bannerman