Does Bush Support Our Troops?

By john horse, Section Diaries
Posted on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:39:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In his appearance on 60 Minutes, George Bush was asked about the mulitple deployments for our servicemen in Iraq. Here is the exchange:

Pelley mentioned to Mr. Bush that thousands of those troops have served two, three and even four tours already and if he would impose a limit. . .
"In Vietnam as you know, you served 365 and you were done," Pelley remarks.
"This is a different situation. This is a volunteer army. In Vietnam, it was, `We're going to draft you and you're going to go for a year.' This is a military where people understand there may be additional deployments," Bush says.

What Bush was saying was that there would be no limit in the number of times that a serviceman can be deployed. Why should we care? According to Time magazine, "The risk of developing PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) rose in direct proportion to the number of fire fights a soldier had experienced." According to author Chris Hedges, "one of the disturbing things about this war is that, because they are so short on numbers, they are treating people for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and then sending them back into combat situations."

Our servicemen are already paying the price for these multiple deployments. In 2004 Time reported that 17% of Iraqi veterans have symptoms of PTSD, 12% had PTSD. That number has increased with mulitple deployments. According to mental health professionals in February 2006 up to one-third of veterans now suffer from some degree of PTSD. Divorce rates for servicemen has also spiked - among enlisted personnel it is up 28 percent and for officers it's up 78 percent (2005).

Bush is destroying our military. He rationalizes the use and abuse of our servicemen on the grounds that they are "volunteers". The use of "volunteers" for multiple deployments may solve a short term problem, but it will create recruiting and retention problems for our military in the long run. It will also create problems for our society as our Iraqi veterans try to reintegrate themselves back into society.

Our servicemen deserve better than this. "Support Our Troops" should be something more than a car decal.

PS - This is my first diary entry. Any comments will be appreciated.

< German problems - Gitmo and the NPD | The Narrowness of "No Child Left Behind" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Does Bush Support Our Troops? | 4 comments (4 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No argument here.... (none / 0) (#1)
by kdog on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:15:48 AM EST

The executive is asking too few to carry too heavy a burden.

God forbid a serious threat to our national security arise in the near future...we won't have a military capable of handling it. They are being beaten down in Iraq for no reason that I can understand.

Rationalizing? (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:41:37 PM EST

Bush is destroying our military. He rationalizes the use and abuse of our servicemen on the grounds that they are "volunteers".

Really good diary, IMO, John. I think this is an important showcasing of blatant 'dishonesty' from Bush at the expense of peoples lives.

Volunteers? Technically, yes, but only in the limited sense that they were not drafted.

When people are motivated by lies and deception about a nonexistent threat to join and serve in the military and take part in an invasion and an occupation of a country that was justified by those lies and deceptions, can they really be said to have 'volunteered'?

It was a bait and switch operation that enticed those who signed up because of the Iraq war that brought them to the recruiting offices. They did not really 'volunteer'.

They were suckered, and many paid with maiming, or with death...

In any commercial organization bait and switch marketing is a crime, and IMO is also a crime in this instance (at least a moral one). I would hope there is some kind of criminal law on the books that applies to this.

Suppose Congress Mandated One Tour of Duty (none / 0) (#3)
by john horse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:15:19 PM EST

First of all, thanks Edger and kdog for your comments.

Here is more on the disgraceful way that the Bush administration is treating our troops. According to the NYT (1/19/07, p. A26, sorry no link), the Bush administration did not even have the decency to tell members of our National Guard in Iraq that their tours od duty had been extended four days after the decision had been made. They had to find out from family members.

Here is a thought. Suppose that Congress mandated that our soldiers would serve no more than one tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan (the 365 days rule for soldiers in Vietnam). Bush would not be able to continue the occupation of Iraq unless he instituted a draft and I dont think he has the cojones to do that.

BUSH SUPPORTS TROOPS? (none / 0) (#4)
by ORGONZALES on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 09:46:55 AM EST

NO I DON'T BELIEVE BUSH SUPPORTS THE TROOPS, AFTERALL HE SENT THEM TO IRAQ WITHOUT THE PROPER EQUIPMENT, HOW DUMB IS THAT. BUSH DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE MILITARY AS A YOUNG PUNK WHEN HE CHICKENED OUT ON VIETNAM AND WENT AWOL FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD. GEORGE BUSH IS SUCH A LOSER AND SO IS EVERYBODY ELSE WHO SUPPORTS HIS FAILED, MISGUIDED AGENDA.