Quote
White House policy: No letter to families of military suicides
By Adam Levine, CNN
November 27, 2009 10:17 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- Gregg Keesling chooses his words carefully when he talks about the death of his son, Spc. Chancellor Keesling.
As far as he's concerned, the soldier didn't "take his own life" or "commit suicide."
His son "died by suicide," Keesling insists -- and he has his reasons why.
When 25-year old Chancellor Keesling shot himself in Iraq on June 19, his family received much support from the military and local officials. Gregg Keesling's son was given the honor afforded to a fallen service member.
The Keesling family went to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to watch as his body was flown back to Indiana six days later. At his burial, seven rifles fired three times each, in true military tradition.
Later, the soldier's aunt created a memorial wall in the family's Indianapolis living room. On the wall hangs Spc. Keesling's uniform, the U.S. flag that was handed to his mother, Jannett, after the service and the Indianapolis flag that flew over the state Capitol in his honor.
Yet there's an empty spot on the wall for an honor that never arrived: a letter from the president.
Gregg Keesling wanted to know why, especially after hearing President Obama talk about how he struggled to write letters to the families of each and every soldier killed in the war.
After pressing for an answer, the family found out the truth: There would be no condolence letter.
It's a matter of policy dating to the Clinton era, according to the White House. The commander in chief sends such letters to the families of troops who have died in combat, but not if they committed suicide, Gregg was told.
The policy felt wrong to Gregg and Jannett Keesling. Their son was a hero, and his country should be proud of him, they said. So Gregg Keesling wrote to Obama and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr., imploring them to rethink the policy.
"The recognition of the president could have profound impact on the family of the suicide victim," Keesling wrote in August.
"The lack of acknowledgment and condolences from the President, who our family admires greatly, leaves us with an emotional vacuum and a feeling that we his family have somehow [made] less of a sacrifice," he wrote in another letter to Casey.
A White House spokesman said the administration is reviewing the "inherited" policy.
"The President's thoughts and prayers are with every military family who has lost a loved one in service to our country. As Commander-in-Chief, he has worked with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to address the mental health needs of our service members," spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in an e-mail.
Spc. Keesling completed two tours of duty in Iraq. When he enlisted in 2003, the family struggled with his decision. But the young soldier was convinced that he made the right decision, telling his family, "We must have a military, and somebody's got to be in it."
Before he deployed 2005, he was anxious but excited, his mother remembered.
However, toward the end of his deployment, the stress of a failing marriage and the shock of war "began to wear on him terribly," Gregg Keesling said.
In anger, he threw his wedding ring into the Tigris River, his parents said. He was put under suicide watch, and his ammunition was taken away for several days.
At home, though, he was "back to his old self," his father said, adding that his son found a job at FedEx and a new girlfriend.
He was treated at the Veterans Affairs clinic for a shoulder injury and burn he suffered during his deployment. His parents assumed he was being treated for everything he needed.
In 2009, he received new deployment orders . His family suggested that he move to his mother's native Jamaica to avoid service, but the soldier insisted that it was his obligation to see it through, his parents said.
When Keesling deployed again, this time as a reservist, he wasn't with his original comrades. Instead, he and 10 other Indiana reserves shipped off with a 300-member unit from Tennessee, with just two months of training together.
His mental health records were not passed on either, leaving Spc. Keesling to share his past problems with his unit if he so chose. He never did.
"I understand that, but it is a very big burden to put on a soldier to self-identify," Gregg Keesling said.
In e-mails to his family, Spc. Keesling wrote about how distant he felt from his new brothers in arms.
"I hate going to war with people I don't know," he said to his father.
Gregg Keesling said his son struggled with members of his unit who joked about troops who committed suicide, oblivious to his struggles.
It became too much to bear.
After a long-distance fight with his girlfriend, the soldier said in an e-mail that he wanted to shoot himself.
After several phone calls, Spc. Keesling told his mother that he would talk to the Army chaplain.
He never did. Instead, 12 hours after that e-mail, he went into a latrine and shot himself.
The family believes that his suicide was brought on by the stress of war and the distance from loved ones. To them, it is death by injury like any other incident.
"He died by suicide," Gregg said. "He just had an injury that we just did not recognize."
And that's why they want a letter from the president.
"We don't want to force the president to write a letter of condolence. We hope he would want to," Gregg said. "We hope the president of the United States would want to show the appreciation to a family like ours for the sacrifice we made in allowing our son to become a soldier and defend his country."
Read it for yourself and weep. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/27/soldier.suicide/index.html
That's actually pretty douchebaggy.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the President doesn't write letters of condolence to the families of every soldier/sailor/airman/marine that dies while in federal service. It would make the letters to those families whose soldiers die in combat pretty meaningless, since they would make up such a tiny fraction of the letters sent. Death in combat is different than any other kind of in-service death, and should be treated differently.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2009, 07:54:45 PM
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the President doesn't write letters of condolence to the families of every soldier/sailor/airman/marine that dies while in federal service. It would make the letters to those families whose soldiers die in combat pretty meaningless, since they would make up such a tiny fraction of the letters sent. Death in combat is different than any other kind of in-service death, and should be treated differently.
I dunno. That's true for something like a car accident, I guess. But a suicide because the guy couldn't take it?
I admit I hadn't thought of your point.
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 08:20:33 PM
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
spoken like a true communist liberal!
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 08:20:33 PM
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
Given that those two are diametrically opposed on every issue, I suppose that means that you stand for nothing and have no opinions about anything.
Are you perchance Barack Obama?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 28, 2009, 08:06:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2009, 07:54:45 PM
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the President doesn't write letters of condolence to the families of every soldier/sailor/airman/marine that dies while in federal service. It would make the letters to those families whose soldiers die in combat pretty meaningless, since they would make up such a tiny fraction of the letters sent. Death in combat is different than any other kind of in-service death, and should be treated differently.
I dunno. That's true for something like a car accident, I guess. But a suicide because the guy couldn't take it?
I admit I hadn't thought of your point.
Suicide for a volunteer soldier is the lowest kind of death, IMHO.
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 08:20:33 PM
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
He'll probably point out that this has been the policy of the US for years.
Re: reprehensible, not sure what would make it worse than any other suicide?
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2009, 08:38:39 PM
Given that those two are diametrically opposed on every issue, I suppose that means that you stand for nothing and have no opinions about anything.
Are you perchance Barack Obama?
Even when they're right, they take it to an extreme that makes them wrong.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2009, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 08:20:33 PM
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
Given that those two are diametrically opposed on every issue, I suppose that means that you stand for nothing and have no opinions about anything.
Are you perchance Barack Obama?
If it is not a gay issue, marty has no opinion. Hans does not post about gay issues as he is a closet homosexual, and so they two never actually negate one another.
Time to host a party in the closet then! :w00t:
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2009, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 28, 2009, 08:20:33 PM
I will wait to see what side Hans comes down on about this issue, then support the opposite side.
Hans is as good a barometer of wrong as Marty.
Given that those two are diametrically opposed on every issue, I suppose that means that you stand for nothing and have no opinions about anything.
Are you perchance Barack Obama?
If it is not a gay issue, marty has no opinion. Hans does not post about gay issues as he is a closet homosexual, and so they two never actually negate one another.
You forget: Martinus also hates America, irrespective of its stance on faggot issues.
Quote from: Scipio on November 28, 2009, 09:28:55 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 28, 2009, 08:06:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2009, 07:54:45 PM
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the President doesn't write letters of condolence to the families of every soldier/sailor/airman/marine that dies while in federal service. It would make the letters to those families whose soldiers die in combat pretty meaningless, since they would make up such a tiny fraction of the letters sent. Death in combat is different than any other kind of in-service death, and should be treated differently.
I dunno. That's true for something like a car accident, I guess. But a suicide because the guy couldn't take it?
I admit I hadn't thought of your point.
Suicide for a volunteer soldier is the lowest kind of death, IMHO.
:rolleyes:
The notion that suicide is something a lazy or cowardly person does to shirk responsibility is what's low here.
I realize I'm preaching to a particularly stubborn type of granite here though, so I guess I really shouldn't work myself up.
Death by AIDS contracted from raping POW.
Death by vehicular accident when joyriding in a stolen hummer.
Death by not-so-friendly-fire while shooting up your own colleagues.
I'm sure I could make a list a hundred thousand kilometers long if I thought hard enough, and I would entitle it "Deaths In Service Lower Than Suicide Or My Treatise On Why Scipio Is A Fucktard But Don't Tell His Mother Though She Probably Already Knows"
I am OUTRAGED. McCain would never allow this to happen.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2009, 07:54:45 PM
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the President doesn't write letters of condolence to the families of every soldier/sailor/airman/marine that dies while in federal service. It would make the letters to those families whose soldiers die in combat pretty meaningless, since they would make up such a tiny fraction of the letters sent. Death in combat is different than any other kind of in-service death, and should be treated differently.
I disagree.
The people in uniform are pieces of a greater whole and while some of them are going to die in combat, others will die of disease, accidents, suicides etc. One man may trip on a branch, and fall to break his neck during the march to the battle field while another bites the first bullet of the engagement, but both deaths are to be a statistically expected part of warfare and as such neither man's death is nobler or more deserving of a letter than the other's. They're both dead and both deaths are the cost of running an army.
I can see a distinction made for heroism, but for the simple task of getting oneself killed by enemy fire rather than by day-to-day tasks?
I'm inclined to agree with grumbler, though this is a terribly difficult issue. Very sad, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2009, 11:09:22 PM
I'm inclined to agree with grumbler, though this is a terribly difficult issue. Very sad, though.
Please elaborate. I am genuinely interested in hearing the argument why combat deaths should be treated as more exclusive and worthwhile than other service deaths.
Edit: To make myself clear, I am curious whether your (and grumbler's aswell, of course) view in this is based on an emotional or rational foundation.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2009, 10:41:14 PM
You forget: Martinus also hates America, irrespective of its stance on faggot issues.
Hans hates America too, he's just more clever about it. ;)
Quote from: Slargos on November 28, 2009, 11:18:36 PM
Please elaborate. I am genuinely interested in hearing the argument why combat deaths should be treated as more exclusive and worthwhile than other service deaths.
Well, in this country I think all families get a letter from the PM so it's different here.
I would be interested in hearing grumbler's thoughts, because mine really aren't at all developed. My rough view would be that deaths in combat are necessarily deaths in the duty and service of their country; accidents and suicides, sad though they are, aren't necessarily like that. Getting run over is not a death in service, even if you're a marine in Afghanistan. If there's to be a different response then I would say that for that reason combat deaths should have a different one to non-combat deaths.
I'd be interested in reading the reasoning behind the Clinton policy, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2009, 01:53:07 AM
I would be interested in hearing grumbler's thoughts, because mine really aren't at all developed. My rough view would be that deaths in combat are necessarily deaths in the duty and service of their country; accidents and suicides, sad though they are, aren't necessarily like that. Getting run over is not a death in service, even if you're a marine in Afghanistan.
I would contend that they are.
If you run the tally on any army, you will find a certain number of casualties broken down into any number of categories but I dare say many (most?) of them will be more frequent as cause of death than they are in civilian life, especially for deployed personnel. How many opportunities for helicopter crash fatality do you expect the average airborne cavalryman would've been subject to if he hadn't joined the army? If I recall correctly it is thus that incidents of suicide are more common among soldiers than the general population as well. In this sense, I would argue "death by campaigning" is no different from "death by combat".
An argument COULD be made that anyone who dies in for instance an automotive accident could've just as easily been killed back home in a similar scenario, but I don't see the need to make such a distinction. They died while on campaign and though their death didn't serve a glorious purpose, any campaign expects to see a certain number of accidents and a certain number of deaths in those accidents which means every soldier joining the campaign is at-risk of vehicular death to a certain degree, just as he is at-risk of death by combat.
They all died because X unit was in Y location serving Z purpose. It doesn't, in my head, matter that some of them died in combat and others out of combat.
Is the bulk of modern journalism focused on non-issues these days or is it just the Languish slant?
We have just spent over a week arguing about the depth of Obama's bow and now we discuss Obama writing letters. What's next? An outrage about the diarrhea of the Presidential puppy?
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle or approached in a wrong way - they are much more important than this ridiculous bullshit.
Combat deaths are different from all other kinds of deaths because a person is safe from the legitimate use of lethal force unless they (a) break the law or (b) are sent into combat by their government. The deaths of people in the latter category are uniquely the responsibility of the federal government; they cannot die in this way unless they agree (however reluctantly) to allow themselves to risk such death for the benefit of their own government. It is thus fitting that the government should uniquely recognize the sacrifice involved.
People can die in accidents, of self-inflicted wounds, disease, etc whether they are in the military or not. Each death is a tragedy, but these deaths are not the same as combat deaths.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:52:12 AM
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle or approached in a wrong way - they are much more important than this ridiculous bullshit.
Uh, you do realize that Jaron's thread title was ironic, don't you?
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:52:12 AM
Is the bulk of modern journalism focused on non-issues these days or is it just the Languish slant?
We have just spent over a week arguing about the depth of Obama's bow and now we discuss Obama writing letters. What's next? An outrage about the diarrhea of the Presidential puppy?
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle or approached in a wrong way - they are much more important than this ridiculous bullshit.
Somebody got sand in their vagina.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:52:12 AM
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle
:lmfao:
Translation: "Spend even more time talking about
my pet issue instead of random stuff in the news."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2009, 09:20:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:52:12 AM
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle
:lmfao:
Translation: "Spend even more time talking about my pet issue instead of random stuff in the news."
I was thinking about Afghanistan and Russia, actually.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2009, 09:20:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:52:12 AM
There are numerous issues Obama failed to tackle
:lmfao:
Translation: "Spend even more time talking about my pet issue instead of random stuff in the news."
I was thinking about Afghanistan and Russia, actually.
No one cares about you.