How in Good Conscience Can We Do This To Our Men And Women in Uniform?
I have a fundamental question -- a really simple basic question. One that every American should be asking themselves right now as our elected officials get ready to return from their month-long vacation.
If the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told you that our troops were at their breaking point, when the Department of Defense reported that our current deployment policies are compounding the wounds of war, causing mental health problems among our troops to skyrocket, and that one of the primary causes was our current policy of deploying troops back to Iraq and Afghanistan without adequate dwell time at home, would you do something about it?
Would you support a policy where soldiers are deployed for 15 months in Iraq and then receive at least equal time stationed stateside to rest, train, and then fight again? (And at least three times that much as home if they are from the Guard or Reserve.)
You'd do that right?
Well, guess what? Back in July before they took their summer break, a lot of United States Senators voted against this fundamental act of fairness by voting against the Webb-Hagel Amendment. (click here to see a press conference where I spoke up for this bill before the vote.)
What's shocking to me is that this was a bill sponsored by two veterans, one Democrat and one Republican, and it was amendment that unlike many in D.C. is incredibly simple and -- more importantly -- fair to our troops:
One month stationed stateside for every month served in Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't get any more basic or any more fair than that.
Look, I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, blue or red. I'm asking you, American to American:
How in good conscience can you do this to our men and women in uniform?
So next week, our elected officials return to work and guess what? There's going to be another dwell time bill waiting for them; this one has already passed in the House of Representatives.
This bill, the Tauscher Bill, like the Webb-Hagel Amendment, offers our troops a fair deployment policy. I hope every single United States Senator votes for this bill. Shame on them if they don't.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree with Mr. Muller's analysis. I would add, at the risk of being called partisan, that a president who actually knew what the heck he was doing would be a welcome source of support for our troops. I, from my lone and undoubtedly skewed perspective, do not see anyone who remotely resembles a president on the horizon as I scan the candidates in both parties. Perhaps America dosen't make presidents anymore. One more job to outsource?
Whenever i see Bush and Co. wittering on and on about "suppporting the troops" while, at the same time, grinding them down in this way, i am reminded of Kipling's poem "Tommy Atkins", which takes the viewpoint of a common soldier:
this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
You can bet the troops of Blackwater USA get a far better deal for Iraq service than our troops.
Time for ours to come home. Let the Oil be secured by private means. That is the real American Way.
I'm going to an anti-war candlelight vigil tonight. Move-on is having them all over the country. The last one I went to in the small town where I live, there were about 100 people there. Everyone who drove by honked and waved, and the police pulled up, got out, spent their time walking around, talking to everyone, joking, laughing. I'm sure it's a big deal to them because they never have demonstrations in this small town. This is in a Republican district.
So someone will take a picture of us, put it together with lots of other photos, and e-mail it all to the Congress for when they get back.
Just in case they forgot that we're waiting for them to end the war.
Our men and women in the armed forces aren't rich enough to be of any concern to our 'leaders'. In America, without the bucks you have no voice.
Corporations, and the politicians that they buy, do not have consciences.
What's going to happen is they won't have a draft, they won't permanently mobilize all those Reservists and Guardsmen, and they won't reduce the demands on the troops.
They will put more on the plate of the active duty and one day something will happen to cause the frayed line to snap.
A group of soldiers will refuse to do their duty, a soldier mentally strained by all the deployments will shoot a general, or God forbid, a group of soldiers will go on a rampage making My Lai pale in comparison.
It's a matter of time, but in the past couple of months more and more lower ranking soldiers (commissioned and noncommissioned) are publicly challenging the mission and the wisdom of their superiors.
General officers have jumped into bed with the politicians because that's how they got those stars. They are showing more loyalty to those above than to those who serve under them. And their conduct is immoral.
It's Vietnam all over again with the officer corps.
It's very easy to do these things to US Troops, when you have NO CONSCIENCE! Bush & his republicans HAVE NONE.
Looks like we found the Bu$hco proletariat trained to just follow orders. It's all about "winning" -- that is, more oil for the Bu$hco buddies.
This is why Bush pushed back on military pay raises - it's easier on the conscience to think of the troops as poor people.
Don't even talk about military pay. Back in 1996 Clinton was talking about not paying the military for a few months to help the economy. The military only gets decent pay once you have been in a few years and even then, you have to be married to get all of the pays available since room and board are provided. Military will always be low since when single or deployed, most of the necessities are provided.
Has the standard for invoking the "but Clinton" strawman fallen that low? Clinton "talked about" it? Do you even have one shred of proof that he ever said that? A few Google searches turned up nothing, so I'll certainly be relying on you to clear that up for us.
Besides that, you're changing the subject. Bush pushed back after Congress approved MORE money for military pay than he had originally asked for. With pay levels that are very low by your own admission this is even less acceptable.
I think the Pentascam will tell any story under the sun to avoid Budget Cuts, is what I think...
It's not budget cuts. It is about stop-loss. With less time home, troops are sent back over before their time is up so that they can get that extra year from our troops. The big picture is that more time home will improve retention as opposed to forcing someone to stay in and guarenteeing they get out after that next deployment. Retention is good, but would be better if troops knew they would get a decent amount of time home.
I, for one, do not support either party. The Dems say they care about the troops for more votes (look at 2006) and the Republicans claim they are the only ones who take terrorism seriously. Both sides pander for what they think will get them the most votes. Worked for the President and for COngress and the Senate and now all 3 are locked into trying to fulfill promises while pushing their own agenda forward. D.C. is in a stalemate and that leaves one person to get his way.
Before we go too far in this discussion, I'd like to note that, after much partison rankling, it was the Republicans who blocked the bill. Yes. Republicans! Keep trying, Dems. Again and again ... until the Republicans get a clue that it is THEY who are not supporting our troops. Folks - Call your representatives. Send them a letter. Ask for their support in this important issue.
I'm so annoyed that people call this a do-nothing Democratic
AFter my first tour in Iraq from April 2003 to April 2004 we thought we would be home for at least a year. February 2005 we left again for another year there. Not only did that hurt morale (when we got there we had to put that aside and focus on the mission) but we were also so short handed that we could barely make mission. The equal time home is not only better (slightly) for morale, it is better so that the units have ample time to train and refit. When a unit returns home they can take up to a 20% hit in numbers because of Soldiers leaving the Army or moving to new units. That time home is essential to ensure that the unit is truely prepared (as well as can be expected at least) for their next deployment.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
