Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/opinion/02EXUM.html
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - Many Americans, feeling that we did not have enough
troops in Iraq, were pleased when the Defense Department announced last
month that 20,000 more soldiers were being sent to put down the insurgency
and help rebuild the country. Unfortunately, few realized that many of
these soldiers would serve long after their contractual obligations to the
active-duty military are complete. In essence, they will no longer be
voluntarily serving their country.
These soldiers are falling victim to the military's "stop-loss" policy -
and as a former officer who led some of them in battle, I find their
treatment shameful. Announced shortly after the 9/11 attacks and authorized
by President Bush, the stop-loss policy allows commanders to hold soldiers
past the date they are due to leave the service if their unit is scheduled
to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Military officials rightly point out
that stop-loss prevents a mass exodus of combat soldiers just before a
combat tour.
But nonetheless, the stop-loss policy is wrong; it runs contrary to the
concept of the volunteer military set up in the aftermath of the Vietnam
War. Many if not most of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are
already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have
honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they
have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq.
Among them are many of my former comrades in the Second Brigade of the 10th
Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y. In the aftermath of the Sept.
11 attacks, I led a platoon of light infantry first to Kuwait in 2001 and
then in combat in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in 2002. My men had
all enlisted before the 9/11 attacks. In Kuwait and Afghanistan, they
performed flawlessly, with several earning commendations for bravery in combat.
Yet even after two deployments to Afghanistan, and with many nearing the
end of their commitments, these soldiers will have to head to Iraq this
summer and remain there for at least a year. I remain close with them, and
as the unit received its marching orders a few called me to express their
frustration. To a man, they felt a sense of hopelessness - they know they
have little say over their future until the Army releases them.
I grew angry when my former radio operator told me the Army had canceled
his orders to return home to San Francisco this month to start college.
Another man had been due to leave the Army just two days after the order
was given, but was instead told to draw his gear and prepare for 12 months
in the desert. And as stressful as these orders are for the soldiers,
imagine what their families are feeling. Theirs are lives interrupted by
the needs of Iraq.
I wonder if I might have been affected too had I stayed at Fort Drum until
the end of my service. (Instead, I left a year and half ago to complete my
four-year obligation with a special operations unit in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and thus don't fall under the Fort Drum stop-loss order.) I
can imagine how angry and betrayed I would feel if, having served my
obligation to the military for my college scholarship, I were told I was
going to Iraq for a year against my wishes.
Of course, I would have done whatever was asked: as a commissioned officer,
my oath of service to my country never really ends. But for enlisted
soldiers, men and women who sign on with the Army for a predetermined
period of service in lieu of commissions, stop-loss is a gross breach of
contract.
These soldiers have already been asked to sacrifice much and have done so
proudly. Yet the military continues to keep them overseas - because it
knows that through stop-loss it can do so legally, and that it will not
receive nearly as much negative publicity as it would by reinstating the draft.
Volunteer soldiers on active duty don't have the right to protest or speak
out against the policy. So my former radio operator has little option but
to quietly pack up and put college on hold. For those of us who have seen
these soldiers repeatedly face death, watching them march off again - after
they should have already left the Army - is painful.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continues to claim that the military,
as now structured, can meet the needs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is simply wrong, as the Pentagon's actions make clear. In addition to
stop-loss, the military is now activating significant portions of the
Individual Ready Reserve as part of what it is calling an "involuntary
mobilization."
The individual reserve consists of troops who are no longer expected to
participate even in regular training; the idea is that they are to be
called up only in a catastrophic national emergency. Most are veterans
recently released from active duty; others are college students on
scholarship and cadets at the service academies.
So several of my former soldiers now in the individual reserve - who have
left the Army, begun new careers and have not even been serving in reserve
or National Guard units - have now been told to expect orders to return to
active duty in the near future.
Stop-loss and the activation of the inactive reserve show how politics has
taken priority over readiness. The Pentagon uses these policies to meet its
needs in Iraq because they are expedient and ask nothing of the civilian
populace on the eve of a national election. This allows us to put off what
is sure to be a difficult debate: whether our volunteer military is
adequate to meet our foreign policy commitments. Meanwhile, in the absence
of this debate, the men and women of our armed forces languish.
Last weekend, veterans of World War II were honored on the Mall in
Washington for their sacrifices. Our government should begin treating the
veterans of the global war on terrorism with a similar degree of respect,
not as election-year fodder.
--
Andrew Exum, a former Army captain, is the author of the forthcoming "One
Man's Army."
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
