Shameful way to treat our troops

[nathanel]

I found this an interesting new way of looking at the situation, and thought I would post it for comment.

----

Shameful way to treat our troops

Warren Spannaus January 9, 2005 SPANNAUS0109

One of the greatest injustices and examples of unfairness in the history of our country is happening, and too few Americans are paying any attention.

More important, the people we pay to correct these inequities -- our congressmen, senators and governors -- are doing nothing. For the most part they are voiceless. Their silence is a national disgrace.

The shameful conduct is the way they treat those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and their families. The president declares we are at war, but only a small percentage of Americans have suffered any pain or loss. They carry the entire burden.

If, as the administration keeps repeating, these soldiers are fighting for our freedom, why aren't the rest of us being asked to share the burden? Why hasn't a national emergency been declared? Why aren't we paying the exorbitant cost as we go, as we've done in the past?

If we have to send the same brave people back to the war zone for a second and third tour of duty, why doesn't the president call for an expansion of the Army and Marines or call for a draft?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calls this a voluntary army. The members of the National Guard and Reserves did not volunteer to liberate Iraq. Those whose enlistments expired did not volunteer to stay. Their families did not volunteer for enduring personal and financial hardship.

Ask anyone who has served in the armed forces. They were proud to serve, but most looked forward to that happy day when their tour would be over and they could return home. To extend their enlistments while most others do nothing is shameful.

Vice President Dick Cheney has said he "had other priorities" during the war in Vietnam. Well, most of these people now fighting have other priorities also.

What bothers many opponents of this war is: Where is the public outrage, why aren't our congressmen speaking out, where are our clergymen, where are our governors, the commanders of the Guard and Reserve?

During Vietnam, the public was outraged. People marched in the streets. Of course, there was a draft at that time, and perhaps if there were a draft now, the war would not have been started. Especially if there were no deferments.

The president should be mindful of the rights of all his constituents, but there is a group being shamefully and cruelly treated. This lack of decency toward some of our finest people is a national scandal. It is immoral.

The administration's stop-loss program is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not right and it is not working. If the president and the defense secretary do not want to bring some decency to their policies, the United States should get out of Iraq the day after the elections.

Warren Spannaus, a lawyer, is former attorney general of Minnesota.


http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5175080.html

 

[Whistler]

Great article. it seems that some americans tolerate this war since it doesn't "cost" them anything. This centainily isn't like world war two or even vietnam where almost everyone shared a piece of the burden.

 

[Covenant Heart]

...The president declares we are at war, but only a small percentage of Americans have suffered any pain or loss. They carry the entire burden.

...Why aren't we paying the exorbitant cost as we go, as we've done in the past?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calls this a voluntary army...

If BBC News World Affairs Correspondent, Paul Reynolds' report is correct that the Iraqi resistance now has some 200,000 supporters http://www.militaryproject.org/article.asp?id=435 (NOTE: Link contains some colourful language; the general tenor will disturb whether or not readers concur), a draft may accomplish little more than provide irate Iraqis with more targets.

But draft or no, rest assured that we'll pay. We'll pay in blood.

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Dumsfeld...you go to war with the President and Defense Secretary that you have.

Blessings!
Covenant Heart

 

[Sycophant]

Actually that reminded me of something that's been bothering me for a while now... What's the deal with the National Guard? I realise they play a support role at a state level within their home states, especially in times of emergency, but what about war?

I saw a statistic somewhere, which I can't remember exactly but it suggested some decent majority (60%ish?) of the troops serving in Iraq were National Guard troops. So is that normal, or is it just some sort of 'grasping at straws' thing to keep the forces all 'volunteer'?

I've looked at a few of the National Guard websites, and they seem to be somewhat ambigious. They certainly suggest a federal role in times of war, but it wasn't very clear if they are generally considered frontline forces for overseas wars and the like.

 

[Sors]

I thought there were alot of reserve troops over there, but I didn't realize there was national guard troops. I think they are basically the present day militia.

 

[xMinionX]

Mmm, they could probably justify using Nat'l guard by claiming homeland security (and therefore, guarding the mainland) as a motive. It's bull, but I guess if they needed a reason.

 

[ClaireZ]

Not only is the National Guard there in force, but they often get the worse equipment. That was what the one soldier was asking about in his question to Rumsfeld.

Many of these people have delayed their educations, lost their business, and left families without support as they can't even leave the National Guard when their enlistment is up.

The reason why we are using stop-loss and calling people back to the service who are in their 50's or older, is because the government is afraid of public reaction, if they start up the draft.

 

[Sycophant]

Ahh, here we go, some solid numbers:

From June 2004 from the official National Guard publication:

Defense officials claim that 40 percent of the 140,000 troops now serving in Iraq belong to the reserve components. The reservists’ slice of the Iraqi pie will be increased to 60 percent beginning in November, Guard spokesmen said, and the National Guard will field 43 percent – nearly half – of the force.

(Source: The National Guard (I had to use the Google Cache))
So 60% of troops in Iraq should bow be Reservists if this plan was followed, and in looks like the National Guard is 43% of that? Or 25% of the overall force. Not as much as I thought at first, but still significant.

Edit:
Oooh, and I just found a good article from Slate about the role of the Reserve and National Guard. Interesting.

 

[k]

Actually that reminded me of something that's been bothering me for a while now... What's the deal with the National Guard? I realise they play a support role at a state level within their home states, especially in times of emergency, but what about war?

I saw a statistic somewhere, which I can't remember exactly but it suggested some decent majority (60%ish?) of the troops serving in Iraq were National Guard troops. So is that normal, or is it just some sort of 'grasping at straws' thing to keep the forces all 'volunteer'?

I've looked at a few of the National Guard websites, and they seem to be somewhat ambigious. They certainly suggest a federal role in times of war, but it wasn't very clear if they are generally considered frontline forces for overseas wars and the like.

The National Guard is a federal institution, therefore, they are bound by enlistment rules that basically say their butts belong to Uncle Sam. Very true that individual states are supposed to have control of those personnel, but with a little pressure from the right people in DC, the states will do as the presidential admin wishes. So, technically, the states have control, but with the current situation, that is obviously not practically true. They have to go where the Commander in Chief say they must go, even though the term "Com in Chief" is not an actual military ranking.

Legally, they are not grasping at straws, but it is a practical plausibility because our troops are physically, emotionally, financially, and spiritually drained. I suspect a draft will be put in place, but before that can happen another attack needs to be suffered by the US or a very close ally. A draft will never be supported until Americans are placed in a new level of fear.

Our troops cannot be expected to keep rolling at the pace they are without a serious amount of relief.