Support Our Troops (11/23/2004)

The signs 'support our troops" and "freedom is not free are widely displayed. I agree with both statements, with the caveat that neither statement translates into support for the Iraq war. Beyond the flag waving and yellow ribbons, consider how we actually treat our troops.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, as many as 95 percent of Army Reservists serving in Afghanistan and Iraq have had military pay problems. These include underpayments and delays in both wages and tax exemptions. The GAO says the system that provides active duty pay is so error-prone and cumbersome that soldiers cannot be assured of timely and accurate payments. It takes some soldiers more than a year to straighten out their pay problems, often with a dire impact on them and their families. Is this how we support our troops?

Thousands of wounded troops face an overburdened benefit system. The disability benefits and health care systems serve about 5 million veterans, and have a backlog of more than 300,000 claims; another 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans became eligible for health care and benefits just in August, and the number is rising. Injured and ill veterans returning from overseas face a complex, lengthy review process to receive financial help. Families are strained by caring for a disabled veteran while trying to meet day-to-day living expenses. Many become charity cases while they await a claims decision. On any given day, at least 300,000 veterans are homeless. Yet, President Bush's 2005 budget calls for cutting the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Is this how we support our troops?

Supply shortages, lack of body protection and armored vehicles and inadequate numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan increase injuries and deaths. This fall, Army Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez complained about the shortage of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, saying, "I cannot continue to support sustained operations with rates this low." Recently, a unit refused orders to drive a dangerous route because their trucks were not armored. Brigadier General Oscar Hilman was denied his request for additional soldiers to protect a supply base. Is this how we support our troops?

In October, 380 tons of powerful explosives were reported missing from an Iraqi military complex because it had not been secured after the American invasion. The response: President Bush attacked Senator John Kerry for raising the issue and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani blamed the troops! He said "No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Didn't they search carefully enough?" Despite the pressures our troops were under, it's pin the blame on the troops! Is this how we support our troops?

During an April press conference announcing that 20,000 troops would have their tour of duty extended, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "People are fungible." Fungible means that something can be satisfactorily replaced with something of similar value. Does Rumsfeld think the soldiers' families consider them fungible--that is, easily replaced? Is this how we respect our troops?

In May and November we honor our service men and women. We should do more; we should advocate higher pay for them, a better, easier-to-use benefits system, and the equipment, troops and training they need. Our troops are people; they are not fungible, easily replaceable parts of a war machine. We should have a war surtax on our income tax to pay for our troops' well-being; they give their lives; the least we can do is give our money; we can support them and recognize that freedom is not free. Is that too much to ask?

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home