Supporting Our Troops

Supporting Our Troops

By Stan G. Kain

6 December 2003

War has a way of generating conflict on the home front, as well as the battlefield. Administrations battle to justify their actions. Congress battles to provide an adequate budget to maintain our soldiers. Citizens line up either supporting the war or voicing opposition to it. The lingering battle in Iraq is no exception.

Anti-war supporters are often accused of lacking patriotism or harming the morale of our troops on the front line. Many hawkish members of society and the Bush Administration do not believe one can be patriotic and supportive of our soldiers, without supporting the war in Iraq. For many pro-war advocates, the line is drawn in black and white. Demanding a speedy return to civilian rule in Iraq and a return of our troops is not viewed as “support.”

The Bush Administration has taken the stance, both at home and around the world, as “You're either with us, or against us.” Again, there is no middle ground. I've lost count of the number of press conferences and photo shoots where President Bush is dressed in one or another piece of military clothing. He's the Commander in Chief and certainly in full support of our soldiers and veterans. Or is he?

The old adage states, “Action speaks louder than words.” Or, in another sense, “You can talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?” Let's look at some measures the Bush Administration has taken, or attempted to take, in support of our armed forces and veterans. Let's examine whether he “walks the walk, or just talks the talk.”

Kevlar body armor offers a significant measure of protection from small arms fire. Most police officers wear Kevlar vests and many are still alive, thanks to the properties of the bullet-resistant material. Right now, more than 40,000 American troops in Iraq wand and need Kevlar body armor. The White House has refused to provide it to them. This has been called a cost-savings move. The families of many soldiers, understanding the value of Kevlar, have forked out their own hard-earned money to provide Kevlar vests to their loved ones. Vietnam veteran, Colonel David Hackworth, says the extra costs for “extraordinary security” for Bush's recent trip to Asia, “would cover a vest for every soldier..”

What about our troops who are injured in Iraq? Most of the injured are returned to Fort Stewart, GA, for medical treatment. The Bush Administration charged the returning injured soldiers $8.00 per day for food, while receiving medical care. Outraged family and friends protest4ed this policy until the Administration was forced to halt the practice.

Military personnel serving in battle zones have always received additional financial compensation. Our 130,000 troops in Iraq receive and additional $75.00 per month for serving in a combat area. That's not much compensation for dodging bullets. Likewise, personnel serving overseas receive an additional $150.oo per month in family separation allowance. This money helps compensate for their absence from home. The Bush Administration, calling these allowances “wasteful and unnecessary,” attempted to cut them out of the budget. Due to a large number of Democratic votes in Congress, the cuts were blocked this year.

Support for our troops also means support for their families. Yet, in mid-October, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced the closing of 19 military commissaries. The commissaries are military-run stores, discounting food and other items for military families. Mr. Rumsfeld is considering the closure of another 19 commissaries. This is not what low-paid enlisted soldiers want to hear.

Military families are not only being shut out of discount shopping, but also facing a loss of military-run schools. The Pentagon is considering the closure of 58 military-run schools at 14 military installations.

The White House is not only ignoring our active duty personnel. Veterans are also targeted for budget cuts. This year, the White House budget for Veteran's Affairs cut $3 billion from Veteran's Administration hospitals. As Vietnam vets are aging, requiring more care and with 9,000 casualties from Iraqi conflicts, veterans are being ignored. Today, the Veteran's Administration is spending $2,800 less per patient than they did nine years ago.

Meanwhile, a federal judge awarded damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf conflict. The Bush Administration is attempting to block the award, claiming the money from confiscated Iraqi assets should be used for the country's reconstruction.

Congress has attempted to address the issue of medical care for the growing number of aging veterans and those with service-connected disabilities. A bipartisan attempt to add $1.3 billion to Veteran's Administration hospital funding was beaten back by the Bush Administration.

Veteran's Administration hospitals have traditionally treated “Priority 8” veterans. Priority 8 veterans are those people needing medical treatment for non-service related illnesses. Many of these veterans cannot afford private medical care. The White House has proposed charging all Priority 8 veterans a $250.00 annual fee for treatment and exclude from treatment, all those earning $26,000 or more annually.

If actions such as the ones shown, represent the attitude of the Bush Administration toward armed service personnel and veterans, one must wonder about the slogan, “Support our troops.” Perhaps the real supporters of our troops are the ones calling for their return home.

An editorial in the “Army Times,,” read by military personnel around the world, summed up White House policy. “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

Even the conservative American Legion has blasted the Bush Administration. Ronald Conley, Commander of the American Legion says, “This is a raw deal for veterans, no matter how you cut it.. The administration is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”

I, for one, do not support the war in Iraq. As a veteran and an American, I do support our military forces. I support their being supplied with the equipment necessary to protect their own lives and support services both while on active duty and as veterans. I believe a continuing effort urging Congress to remember the needs of those who served this nation is far more patriotic than standing in front of television cameras, dressed in military clothing, whole “talking the talk.” Let's demand that the Bush Administration also, “walk the walk.”

If you have questions or comments, please email Stan.

© 2003 Stan G. Kain