I have yet to hear or read about the environmental hazards that our troops would encounter if they were sent onto Iranian soil. That issue appears to be of little, or non-existent, concern to those advocating commencing a land battle. The black plumes of smoke and debris emanating from the bombs exploding in Iran undoubtedly contain toxic particles that will be endangering the health of Iranian citizens for decades to come. And if American troops are sent to these bombed sites, or any abutting areas, they will be harmed by inhaling these toxins as well.
Having witnessed the devastating effects of Agent Orange on the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, as well as the burn pits in the Gulf and Iraq wars, should give pause to subjecting our fighting forces to this harm.
Once our soldiers return home seemingly unscathed the psychological effects may manifest immediately but the physical disabilities may not appear for many years. And those skeptics who may be inclined to discount this projected harm should research the list of presumptive conditions the government is providing treatment for and disability payments to our veterans.
Too many veterans from our overseas wars and their families, since Vietnam, have faced the long-term tragic and debilitating consequences of being sent to territories bombed with materials that contain toxic chemicals or were released from the objects exploded.
An enlisted soldier sent to battle is expected to understand that there is a real risk of sudden death or dismemberment as realities of combat, but how many are familiar with potential long-term illnesses and conditions that appear many years in the future?
It is incumbent upon our leaders who are advocating placing “boots on the ground” that this toxic threat be publicly acknowledged, and considered, in the equation of mounting a land attack.
Betty Ussach-Schwartz
Southampton