When Johnny Comes Marching Home, Again
Posted on October 31st, 2008
by Kelley Vlahos |
|
There is no guarantee that a President Obama, or President McCain won’t slowly shift big chunks of the more than 140,000 U.S military now in Iraq to Afghanistan in 2009. The Pentagon is already suggesting it needs 20,000 more troops for the troubled region and both Republicans and Democrats seem to be on the same yellowed page regarding the ability to finish Afghanistan, whatever that means.
So that ultimately signals more deployments for our approximately 1.2 million National Guard and Reservists — many of whom have served more than one tour in Afghanistan and/or Iraq already. We know all about the strain these wars have put on the entire military — including recruitment, retention, health and welfare of the troops and of veterans. But as the the news of “recession” finally becomes reality for America’s families, it’s worth reminding ourselves and our elected representatives that we can’t keep rotating part-time soldiers in and out of theater indefinitely and expect they will be very competitive in the job market when they return (the same goes for active duty leaving the service). Nor can we expect to recruit the numbers we need to fight a “forever war” if employers are increasingly wary of hiring citizen soldiers who may not be there from one moment to the next.
From the upcoming 60 Minutes Nov. 2:
Trucking company executive Dave Miller complains his company is bearing an extra financial burden by adhering to the law.
Workers’ deployment, coming sometimes with just three weeks notice, costs recruitment, training and sometime relocation fees for their replacements. “The private employers cannot…support the full cost of defending this nation,” says Miller. There is currently no tax incentive or subsidy to help defray these costs for private employers and Miller has petitioned Congress to offer relief. “If the military is going to take our people 30 percent of the time, let them pay 30 percent of the healthcare costs,” he tells (Leslie) Stahl.
The burden on private companies is causing them to discriminate against reservists and guardsmen, says Ted Daywalt, president of Vet Jobs.com. Such discrimination would be illegal and it is hard to prove, but “You can prove it to a point,” says Daywalt. “There are surveys done that show that upwards of 70 percent of the employers won’t hire a person who’s active in the Guard and Reserve,” he tells Stahl.
Cynically, one can assert that the current economic crisis — including rising unemployment rates (Michigan is now at some 8.7 percent) — will boost military recruitment because more young men and women will be looking for the job security or the extra paycheck every month and dough for college. But that still doesn’t address the more than 1.7 million who have already served their country nobly in-theater and are eager to settle down into private sector careers, raise a family, and get on with their lives. Perhaps the recession will be the exit strategy : aside from there being less support for a trillion dollar war, you can only burden the volunteers so much before they realize they’ve been taken for granted.
The title brings up visions of Phil Hartman, a piano, a tip jar and the elevator just outside the office of WNYX. LOL
As a Reservist injured and permanently disabled in Afghanistan I can tell you that this Administration believes that money thrown at soldiers in the form as enlistment Bonuses has been its priority. Quick money, and the promise of being able to pay for an increasingly costly college education coupled with high unemployment have given us the best mercenary army money can buy. The problem is building an empire does not come cheaply. Either in Funding or boots on the ground. So Uncle Sam has had to lower its standards of recruits. We are now welcoming individuals with lower scores on mental ability tests, records of drug abuse and even felony convictions. Not only does this demean the good name of our armed forces but it is these people that the rest of the military are depending upon to cover there back sides.
The Bush Administration and its Defense Department has resisted spending money on Veterans issues, such as lowering the retirement age for Guard and Reserve and concurrent receipt of veterans disability payments and Retirement moneys. At present, after 20 years of credible service a reservist is eligible for retirement at age 60. This retirement is based on a formula of years served, and points earned for each day of service. It amounts to a very small stipend that is then reduced evn more by any payments received for service connected disabilities from the VA.
It is not enough for a nation to say it supports the troops if it is only interested in them while still in uniform and of some use.
I was in Afghanistan listening to Armed Forces Radio eating an MRE laced with sand when Secretary Rumsfeld made his infamous statement,”you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
During this same Town Hall Meeting in Kuwait a reservist asked : “Mr. Secretary my question is with the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement?”
SEC. RUMSFELD: [Laughter] “I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. [Laughter] Good grief. It’s the last thing I want to do is retire. We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active force. And we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way that we can attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the country. At the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and retaining the people we need.”
Well good grief and golly gee Rummy that did’nt answer the troops question.
Rumsfeld as well as Senator Warner have been asked this question many times and each time a quip about their own age and unwillingness to retire is accompanied by a dismissive chuckle.
Perhaps if these two men had considered retirement sooner this country’s armed forces and the country as a whole would be in much better shape.
It really is a huge debate as to whether the next president decides to continue the US defense outlay or cutting the same to an extent. Recently I was watching a documentary The World Without US, which was an excellent depiction of the director’s journey throughout the world in search of answers to the question on whether and how the world changes if the US withdraws its troops from the world over. A must watch for all I would say.
Some 50 or 60 years ago I read a book or article entitled “When Johnny Comes Marching Home” Can you get it and advise authır’s name?
Thanks