Reckoning with the Consequences

	Linda Simmons Hight	Tom Paquette
	Gail M. Armstrong	Thomas G. Whittle
“We can start by ensuring that today’s ‘solutions’ don’t become tomorrow’s problems.” — The Editors

The dichotomy is striking.

As our country emerges from Operation Iraqi Freedom, all parts of the world face potentially disastrous consequences. Continuing acts of terrorism are a virtual certainty, and this prognosis includes the very real possibility of nuclear, biological or chemical attack.

Yet, at the same time, the opportunities for trade, for the exchange of culture and technology and for advancement of human rights and democratic principles have never been greater.

We have embarked on a road, right or wrong, as a “solution” to our post-September-11 world and it remains to be seen what we make of it.

How do we tilt the scale in favor of cultural advance and not social decay or abrogated rights and freedoms?

We can start by ensuring that today’s “solutions” don’t become tomorrow’s problems. An optimum resolution to any conflict or problem — be it for the long-range benefit of a nation, a technology or an individual — relies most heavily upon our ability to envision the consequences of what we accept and defend as solutions.

Understandably, short-term, quick-fix solutions come into play in dire emergencies. However, in the vast majority of cases, opportunity exists to weigh consequences before acting and to make decisions that are most equitable and just for all involved.

History abounds with examples of “solutions” that became serious problems. And some of these we face today:

As first reported in Freedom 15 years ago, our “Pilots on Speed” investigation warned of the destructive effects of amphetamines and the hazards inherent in their use by Air Force pilots.

However, this practice is still in use today— with tragic consequences, as some of our readers were quick to note. The 1988 exposé took on particular importance in light of the April 2002 “friendly fire” deaths of four Canadian servicemen and the wounding of eight others in Afghanistan — casualties of an Air Force pilot who now blames his amphetamine dosages for marring his judgment.

U.S.-backed arming of Mujahidin rebels in the 1980s’ Afghan-Soviet conflict begat the series of mass murders in the decades to follow, when disgruntled armed rebels gradually evolved into Al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

Official U.S. support for the Pakistani regime over the same period served to shield that country’s divulgence of nuclear bomb-building secrets to the North Korean dictatorship that threatens the world today.

Tacitly, the U.S. also endorsed Iraqi chemical arms developments when Saddam Hussein was viewed as an ally in his 1980s attacks on Iran, the consequences of which are the subject of this issue’s cover report.

As this feature story illustrates, many 1991 Gulf War veterans still struggle with little-recognized but life-threatening after-effects of their service. As for the panacea offered by the psychiatric industry, their knee-jerk assertion that our vets’ maladies exist only “in their heads” plays out (once again) as the constant search for a wider client base for their profitable drug treatments.

Today, in the wake of another Middle East conflict, we find ourselves still facing the specter of Desert Storm veterans, their maladies unresolved and often ignored.

Key to resolving the issue is a correct acknowledgement of the problem. And giving rise to hope are the doctors and specialists who are today actively exposing the psychiatric myth of “Gulf War Syndrome” and who are demanding and seeking real solutions to “Gulf War Illness.”

This is the compelling story, its ramifications, consequences, problems and solutions, that we examine and dissect in this edition of Freedom. Because of its vital importance to our military personnel and their families, and to our national security, we decided to devote as much space as needed to do this story justice. And, as ever, we point to what can be done about the problem. Something can always be done—no matter how dire the situation.

As usual, we welcome your comments and views.

— The Editors