The Bush team once again shows its support for our troops–by demanding reserve troops spend a full year in Iraq. Remember, reserve troops are the kids who signed up expecting to do their duty on weekends while holding down jobs–plus maybe some summer weeks in hardcore “training.”
I went to see what Lieutenant Smash thought about this news, which only Reuters was publishing when I found it. (I found his live-from-Iraq blog months ago, and he sounds like a decent, hard-working, honest guy.) I was pleased to see he’s already made it home, away from the 120 degree summer heat and the duststorms and bombs and bullets.
I then checked out Smash’s blogroll of other “live from Iraq” types. Nearly all are home or else on their way home. The squeaky blogger gets the discharge?
8 responses so far ↓
1 jdfelt@8... // Sep 9, 2003 at 9:40 am
What is really powerfull on Lt. Smash’s blog is a tribute to a fallen comrade. It should be recommended reading to anyone who is for the war.
Actually it is so well written and moving it should be recommended reading to all.
jd
2 Betsy Devine // Sep 10, 2003 at 2:26 am
Yes, I agree. In fact I’d also recommend it to people who (like me) are against the war, to remind us of the humanity of people who disagree with us.
3 marcum // Sep 10, 2003 at 4:26 pm
Regardless of what “the kids” expected, they are members of the armed forces. As such, they have a vested responsibility to obey the Commander-in-Chief or be considered AWOL or traitors. When you join the Armed Forces you must expect to be put into duty and to serve during wartime. It is what the reserves are their for; to support the regular army and provide personell relief to the front lines. Why put on a pair of skis if you don’t intend to go skiing?
4 Betsy Devine // Sep 10, 2003 at 7:19 pm
Marcum, when my neighbor’s husband got Alzheimer’s, she turned her life over to caring for him and keeping him from hurting himself. Didn’t she agree to do just that when she promised “for better or for worse”? Yes. But while I honor her choice, I still wish life had handed them both a better deal. Same with the soldiers.
5 marcum // Sep 11, 2003 at 2:12 pm
Thats true, but it isn’t implicative from what you wrote about military reserves (which was cynical). I’m sorry about your neighbor. I’m also sorry that I used the wrong “there.”
6 Betsy Devine // Sep 11, 2003 at 7:03 pm
I don’t feel cynical about the military reserves, but I do feel cynical about political “leaders.” Rumsfeld claims we need no new troops in Iraq–even if he’s right that the number we have is exactly right to keep the peace in Iraq, wouldn’t it be good to spread the burden around instead of surprising soldiers who have already been there many months with the news they can’t go home yet?
7 Betsy Devine // Sep 11, 2003 at 7:05 pm
Hey, Marcum, as for using the wrong “there” My defense when I make similar errors is “Yes, I can spell–I just can’t type!”
8 marcum // Sep 12, 2003 at 8:19 am
The truth is, Betsy, that I do not know what is better: 1) relieving the troops in Iraq or 2) maintaining the same troops because of their experience in the region. It may be worse to send in less-seasoned troops to an area that requires a high degree of veterancy and experience. I also believe that what Sec. Rumsfeld meant was that the number of troops does not need to increase, not refering to necessarily the same individuals. That is, that the military does have a relief schedule but the overall number of troops in Iraq is adequate.